TransitCenter is an independent, civic philanthropy that sparks innovations and supports policies to improve public transportation. We believe that fresh thinking can change the transportation landscape and improve the overall livability of our cities. We commission and conduct research, convene events, and produce publications that inform and improve the practice of planning, financing, and oper- ating transit. For more information, please visit www.transitcenter.org.

Board of Directors

Rosemary Scanlon, Chair

N. Venu Gopal

Eric S. Lee

Darryl Young A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation

2 Acknowledgements

3 Foreword

4 Executive Summary

6 Introduction

8 Postwar Transportation Status Quo

12 Human Factors in Urban Transportation Innovation

22 Conclusions and Recommendations

26 Portland

34 New York City

42 Pittsburgh

50 Chicago

56 Denver

64 Charlotte

70 Bibliography Acknowledgements

Shin-pei Tsay wrote this report with additional writing and editorial review provided by David Bragdon, Steven Higashide, and Kirk Hovenkotter.

The authors would like to thank Linda Bailey, Eliot Sclar, Noah Budnick, and Adriana Valdez Young for reviewing early versions of the study and for providing guidance in the research direction and methodology. They also gratefully acknowledge Elizabeth Marcello for research assistance and the following people who provided review of the city case studies: Shannon Binns, Scott Curry, Meg Fencil, Julia Day, Stephanie Lotshaw, and Bridget Moynihan. Thank you to all for your important contributions. The views expressed here and any errors are our own.

The authors would like to acknowledge that Shin-pei Tsay is on the board of Transportation Alternatives, an organization that is a subject of focus in the NYC case study of this report. Contributing author and editor David Bragdon served on the Metro Council of Portland, an entity that is featured in the Portland case study. This study benefited from our firsthand knowl- edge of these cases, but we were also careful to validate our analysis with additional research.

This study was made possible with funding from the Knight Foundation.

2 What started as a straightforward federal policy changes. So while we Foreword and curious question – what were the started with nearly 30 possible case human factors behind recent urban studies that demonstrated progress transportation innovations in the in urban transportation, we ended up United States – turned into a wide focusing on the six that provided the exploration of civic action, governance, strongest illustrations of the human and the very meaning of innovation actions behind urban transportation for transportation at this moment. innovation. Even today, the majority We were thrilled to be able to of cities in the United States remain study cities and the leadership that vulnerable to policies and practices have made such an indelible mark in established long ago. recent years. But to keep the study In the end, our study is simply one manageable and useful, we had to perspective on what it takes to make make some difficult decisions and change. We hope that our analysis narrow the range of our investigation. will show that any city can take up Where we might have started the fight to bring their streets back to with a very broad conception of inno- their people, as long as they have the vation, we found ourselves landing leaders in place. on a definition that encapsulated the ways that our street moved away from the territory of vehicles and returned to the realm of people. While this may not seem “innovative” in the technological sense, that cities would introduce bike lane networks, public plazas, mini-parks, and bikeshare wholesale onto American streets was inconceivable as recently as 2005. The most recent period of rapid innovation was genuinely unusual relative to the prior five to six decades during which the majority of cities could not make these changes even with significant

3 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Recent innovations in urban transportation in the United States have consisted of resident-led efforts to create more ways of moving around the city. Rather than the adoption of new technology, these advances have centered on reintroducing human vitality into streets that have been lost to cars for decades. Our analysis of the human factors behind implementing small-scale change in a wholesale way shows that engagement from three areas of society is required for a city to innovate. Executive First and foremost, a civic sector that is resident-led, Summary non-elite, and outside government—yet able to persuade local politicians to take risks—is paramount to the success of any city. Citizen-led campaigns can pressure authorities to change direction, diversify the mix of transportation options, and also provide evidence of why that change would be beneficial. Without a civic sector that can direct public support, urban transportation innovation will not reach its potential.

Second, a bold mayor and transportation agency head who have both the courage to create the vision for a different kind of city and the management skills to compel their staff to do things differently are essential for the successful implementation of any change. Without the vision and mandate from the very top of city government, there is little chance of urban transportation reforms succeeding in the long run.

Finally, agency adoption is essential for the thorough implementation of new transportation practices. Without staff willing to challenge the existing culture and processes within city government, the city would only have pilot projects here and there to show for all its efforts. Without agency staff adopting new practices, wholesale change is not possible.

4 The following strategies can encourage more urban transportation innovation in the future:

> Encourage civic organizations to emerge and reframe transportation issues as quality-of-life issues.

> Reinforce public support through political organizing and leveraging technical expertise or data.

> Bolster the courage of leaders willing to take on reform by connecting them with visible public support and a compelling communications strategy.

> Position advocates on the inside to catalyze a reorientation of city agency and staff culture.

> Perpetuate new norms by changing agency standards.

> Create federal and state policies that recognize and reward small-scale urban transportation reform and tip the scales toward innovation.

Though much progress has been made in several cities, the human-oriented transportation changes examined here are not pervasive nationwide. Only a handful of cities have made lasting reforms that will stand the test of time, while the majority of federal and state transportation policies continue to support auto-oriented development. With the information here, we hope that more urban residents will take up the fi ght and continue to challenge the status quo and reclaim the streets that are the lifeblood of their cities.

5 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Introduction For much of history, the hallmark of other human-centric street elements thriving cities was the vibrancy of nearly vanished from the urban their streets. Streets not only facil- landscape under the dictates of twen- itated the movement of goods and tieth-century transportation policy, people, they were also where people these very elements, as basic as they exchanged products and ideas. The may appear, comprise the major urban streets were where citizens carried transportation innovations of the out their public lives. twenty-first century. During the postwar years in the This report looks at several U.S. United States, the classical notion cities—New York, Chicago, Portland, of the vibrant street was shattered Pittsburgh, Denver, and Charlotte—to for the average citizen. As the U.S. better understand how they turned government embarked on building back to people-oriented transporta- the Interstate Highway System, its tion. We chose these cities because national project to link regions and they are the strongest illustrations of cities from coast to coast, it over- effects of the human factors behind turned the classical concept of strata urban transportation innovation. Keep for one that prioritized personal cars in mind that the prioritization of cars and movement. Significant dedicated is still the most common and standard federal funding directed to state transportation practice throughout departments of transportation, the most of the United States. Each city creation of new federal and state poli- has a current reputation for being a cies, and the emergence of new design leader in urban transportation as we and engineering practices contrib- write this in 2015, but the initial cata- uted to the assemblage of a massive lyzation and paradigm shift may have policy and institutional superstructure taken place at different moments. that was persistently auto-oriented. Portland is illustrative because its Uniformity in those mono-modal prac- moment of change took place in the tices, which were applied regardless of early 1970s, when few peer cities were context, contributed to the homogeni- undertaking such changes. Two of our zation of American streets. Many local cities, Denver and Charlotte, are also leaders and citizens felt powerless to younger cities, without the foundation override the institutionalized bias for of a compact urban form or street auto-oriented development. network with which to work. This led These practices, supported by these cities to pursue change in slightly policy and funding mechanisms, different ways than more mature normalized, then calcified. The hall- cities such as New York and Chicago. marks of the successful street of the Regardless of the differences, reforms past seemed to virtually vanish, and in each of the cities we examined the classical use of the street evapo- succeeded most when they were rated. Over the next several decades, developed locally. Most changes were a preference for cars permeated initiated without a state or federal state transportation plans and policy mandate. Nor was significant overpowered other local urban trans- additional funding available for these portation needs. kinds of improvements. In spite of But starting in the mid-2000s, a all these odds, the cities we studied handful of cities accelerated progress found—and continue to find—ways in reorienting their streets toward to bring back livelier streets that can people. City leaders reclaimed auto handle a mix of modes. We hope to parking spaces for bike lanes, repur- inspire more cities to continue to chal- posed dead corners for public plazas, lenge the status quo and so we include and built and expanded sidewalks recommendations based on these throughout their cities. Because bike lessons at the end of this report. lanes, public plazas, sidewalks, and

7 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Postwar Transportation Status Quo

8 BEGINNING IN THE 1950S, THE MAJORITY OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY WAS ALMOST ENTIRELY AUTO-ORIENTED. WEST SIDE HIGHWAY, NEW YORK CITY, 1951. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.

It is worth understanding the significantly more funding for road fundamental effects of today’s trans- and highway building, and far less for portation policy structure and culture mass transit and biking and walking in order to emphasize the significance facilities. Travel by walking, biking, or of current innovations. Multiple poli- public transit within the city became cies contributed to the significant less of an official concern. As a result, growth of car ownership and urban main-street retail corridors that once sprawl and to the decline of public provided the social and economic transportation, walking, and biking cohesion of livable neighborhoods and in America. Such national policies managed a multitude of street cars, resulted in two repercussions that buses, pedestrians, and bicycles were contributed to the late twentieth- slowly turned over to accommodate century status quo: the diminished only cars. ability of cities to retain a multitude Planning and design practices of ways of moving around their own reinforced the federal dictates, streets and the deepening influence of overriding other modes that had auto-centric planning, development, adequately accommodated local and design practices. travel. Transportation engineers and Beginning in the 1950s, the planners found ways to design streets majority of transportation policy was to accommodate more cars, with less designed by the federal government regard for land use. Land appeared and targeted at state govern- to be relatively abundant in the U.S., ments and most importantly were and communities needed to make way almost entirely auto-oriented. These for the new technology: cars. Designs top-down policies weakened urban for sidewalks shrank or disappeared authority over the entire trans- altogether to allow for more vehicles portation system within municipal in the public right-of-way, which Jane jurisdictions. A preference for cars Jacobs described as “erosion” in The permeated state transportation plans Death and Life of Great American and overpowered other local urban Cities, her landmark book about the transportation needs. There was dynamism of neighborhoods in cities

9 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation JANE JACOBS IN 1961, THE YEAR SHE PUBLISHED THE DEATH AND LIFE OF GREAT AMERICAN CITIES. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.

In essence, innovative cities inverted postwar transportation policy with a large dose of bottom-up strategies to and the negative effects of automo- throughput of people, the govern- “get it done.” bile-centric, modernist planning. She ment counted the number of cars. goes on to explain: Instead of the level of human activity or retail sales generated by the street, “Because of vehicular congestion, streets that facilitated fast cars and a street is widened here, another no pedestrians were rewarded with is straightened there, a wide funding. Indicators of local economic avenue is converted to one-way INTERSTATES NEAR and social vibrancy became bereft CHARLOTTE, NC, flow, staggered-signal systems of value. EMBLEMATIC OF are installed for faster movement, AUTOMOBILE-CENTRIC, It follows, then, that the cities a bridge is double-decked . . . , an MODERNIST PLANNING. we determined to be the most AUSTIN SWANGER/FLICKR. expressway is cut through yonder, innovative in recent years were the and finally whole webs of express- ones that reversed this “erosion” of ways. More and more land goes space for people on American streets. into parking, to accommodate the Local leaders in these cities had to ever increasing numbers of vehicles cultivate bottom-up approaches to while they are idle.” bring back walking, biking, and public As time went on, these practices transit to enliven the street, and make became entrenched in design stan- it a part of urban life again. These dards that are still in use. Thus, even if innovative cities created new stan- local authorities would like to widen or dards and practices that reoriented include a sidewalk in a new develop- the way their streets would be viewed, ment today, engineering and planning planned, designed, and managed. standards disable the idea. In essence, innovative cities inverted The body of performance indi- postwar transportation policy with a cators established by the federal large dose of bottom-up strategies to government and state departments “get it done,” as so many of our inter- of transportation steadily began to viewees related. reflect the federal bias toward cars over people. Instead of measuring the

10 11 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Human Factors in Urban Transportation Innovation

12 We examined six cities that have on Community Development in achieved significant, recent success: Pittsburgh, the Metropolitan Planning New York City, Chicago, Portland, Council in Chicago, and the Regional Pittsburgh, Denver, and Charlotte. Plan Association in New York City, Although these cities have varied creating plans that would be neutral geographic, political, and socioeco- enough to represent a group of nomic contexts and are at different major business stakeholders yet still stages of economic development and palatable to elected officials and maturity, they all exhibited similar the voting public. The Downtown human factors that worked in concert Denver Partnership and Charlotte’s to make their reforms a reality. Center City Partners are also busi- ness-led civic organizations focused on planning issues. Over time, these Robust Civic Vanguard organizations have not only coor- dinated local stakeholder interests Cities that innovate in urban trans- toward common civic goals, they have portation have a robust environment often become research institutions of civic organizations outside govern- that have developed long-range plans. ment that are in favor of more What is essential is that local civic walking, biking, and public-transit use. leaders can develop ideas free from These organizations force the public bureaucratic constraints and show and government leaders to engage how these ideas can be applied in the with their proposals. Usually there local context. are myriad organizations, and these These organizations, however, organizations are the bedrock of the may not be the ones that create the bottom-up approach that encourages ground strategy. Armed with good urban transportation innovations. A ideas, other civic organizations can robust civic sector is the single most persuade reluctant elected officials prevalent factor among all the cities to consider those ideas. Ideas that we studied. may have fallen out of political favor, in spite of their merit, also benefit from civic organizations continuing to keep those ideas alive in public debate. Advocacy organizations, playing roles different from those of the civic planning organizations mentioned above, draw attention to good ideas by creating political campaigns. Some organizations can fulfill both planning and advocacy roles, but this is rare. Nearly all the advocacy organizations we interviewed, such as Transportation Alternatives (New York), the Active Transportation NEW YORK CITY REGIONAL First and foremost, civic orga- Alliance (Chicago), Bike Pittsburgh, PLAN ASSOCIATION ASSEMBLY, nizations such as advocacy groups, BIG IDEAS SESSION, 2014. and the Bicycle Transportation grassroots organizers, policy think NANCY BOROWICK. Alliance of Oregon, were created to tanks, and research institutions have advance an agenda of increasing more freedom than elected officials pedestrian and bicycling space in to explore and launch ideas that cities. Without the civic sector might appear out of the ordinary and continually pushing the importance politically risky. A vacuum of civic- of an idea and connecting it to the minded planning professionals was public vote, very few innovative ideas filled by the Allegheny Conference are implemented.

13 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Civic organizations of all kinds The Active Transportation Alliance raise the profiles of new ideas by pioneered ciclovias—streets closed finding new ways of communicating to cars to make space for cyclists them. They often reframe ideas and pedestrians—in Chicago as a to attract additional supporters. public health initiative. Evaluation Activists might start with the goal of of this pilot program showed that clean air or neighborhood revitaliza- more people benefited from phys- tion and then land on transportation ical activity after the launch of these reform as a means to achieving their test ciclovias. The positive results of original objective. Portland activists, this Active Transportation Alliance for example, did not set out to build an test program then prompted the extensive light rail network; they were city to create a ciclovia. In New York concerned about saving their neigh- City, Transportation Alternatives A robust civic sector borhoods. With an orientation toward connected community impact, vulner- is the single most broad public benefit, not narrow able pedestrians, and street design in bicycle interests, civic organizations its pioneering Safe Routes to School prevalent factor can significantly augment support. In project in the Bronx and Safe Routes among all the cities 2005, bicycle activists’ priorities were for Seniors in Upper Manhattan, both transformed into family-friendly qual- of which evolved into federal- and city- we studied. ity-of-life issues in New York City by funded programs. the New York City Streets Renaissance Demonstration projects not only campaign created by Transportation win over the public, they also challenge Alternatives, Project for Public Spaces, the municipality’s operational proce- and Open Plans. dures and industry design standards. To prove that their ideas are The Active Transportation Alliance helpful to a wide group of people, challenged the idea that people would successful civic organizations created prefer to drive when given the oppor- physical demonstrations that anyone tunity to bike or walk. The Safe Routes could experience to highlight the bene- for Seniors program challenged the federal standard for the speed at which pedestrians walk. The feder- ally mandated 3.5-feet-per-second walking speed was proven to be faster than the real average speed of senior and young pedestrians. Yet this “design speed” is what currently guides the timing of signals and the width of crosswalks. But providing evidence is not enough. Civic organizations must convert innovations birthed in the advocacy realm into ideas ready for adoption by politicians. Often this happens through the hard work of gathering public input, integrating various opinions, and baking those views into politically palatable PEOPLE FOR BIKES, DENVER. fits of their new ideas. Literature and programs. More pedestrian space was PAUL TALBOT/23RD STUDIOS/ the gathering of secondhand research enshrined into mayoral agendas by FLICKR. is useful, but firsthand evidence from transportation advocates on Rahm a pilot project that shows how imple- Emanuel’s and Bill de Blasio’s transi- mentation can be accomplished, tion teams in Chicago and New York, coupled with an evaluation of the pilot respectively, by focusing on increasing project, can be particularly effective. safety. Bike Pittsburgh’s bike map

14 traced the most popular routes the agendas thrust upon them by already taken by cyclists in the city, civic organizations. making the previously invisible bicycle Prioritization of transportation community much more by a city’s mayor sets two important legitimate. The Safe Routes for dynamics into motion. As a leader, Seniors program was created as a the mayor articulates a vision and political strategy to engage a major political rationale for the transpor- voting block: senior citizens. It is tation reform agenda. As the head critical that civic organizations are municipal manager, the mayor directs connected to and can deliver political the city staff to execute changes supporters for elected officials to and creates a sense of urgency. All of ensure political saliency in urban trans- our interviewees pointed to empow- portation innovations. erment and urgency as two critical Demonstration The numerous roles played by cultural changes that stemmed projects not only residents and civic organizations from the leadership of their mayors described here highlight the many and commissioners. While many win over the public, kinds of organizations that must ideas may have floated around the they also challenge exist in order to turn a good idea into civic environment for years, it was actual change. Think tanks specialize the prioritization of transportation the municipality’s in collecting evidence, developing poli- by the mayor and transportation cies, and publishing reports. Advocates agency head, as leaders of the city and operational craft political strategies and managers of the city’s civil servants, procedures and engage decision-makers and voters. that made implementation possible. Grassroots organizers pound the Often the mayor cast a city’s industry design pavement, collect signatures, and can transportation vision in different standards. often be the noisemakers. Business terms and then assigned it to new elites can also be helpful, but they are people to signal a change in gover- often in support of large infrastruc- nance. Mayor Michael Bloomberg ture projects and usually work in a used PlaNYC, a long-range city manner similar to that of highway sustainability plan, as a backdrop for coalitions. Without grassroots activist transportation reform. The trans- organizations, small-scale street portation benchmarks included in designs are too easily overlooked. They PlaNYC were created for environ- either do not happen or they might mental-protection purposes. For its happen in singular ways: one inter- implementation, he hired Janette section improvement here, one bike Sadik-Khan, a reform-minded trans- lane there. While some groups may fill portation commissioner who had many roles, the more diverse the civic the courage to move boldly. Mayor ecosystem’s organizations and skills, Emanuel in Chicago followed suit with the greater the likelihood that a new his pick of Gabe Klein, an entrepre- idea launched into the public sphere neur who first tried out his strategies will evolve into a political mandate. as head of the Washington, D.C., Department of Transportation but who had no professional training in transportation or public-sector Bold Leadership management. Klein’s relative lack While we found that remarkably little of government experience was a reform originated with elected offi- welcome departure from the DOT’s cials—and that most of the mayors history pattern of cronyism, which led who ultimately became champions of to stagnation. reform did not enter office with trans- Having a clear plan, as Mayor portation high on their Bloomberg did, helps strengthen agendas—they were critical to the public support by first describing a adoption and then advancement of broad vision and then laying out ways

15 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation of achieving that vision in tangible terms. Both Gabe Klein and Janette Sadik-Khan issued department of transportation strategic plans— Chicago Fast Forward and NYC DOT Sustainable Streets—to outline their visions for their respective cities. Chicago had a complete-streets policy and a bicycle policy before Klein took office, but little of it resulted in change on the ground until Klein developed Chicago Fast Forward, a unifying FORMER NYC DOT strategy. Chicago Fast Forward clar- COMMISSIONER ified the vision and goals, articulated JANETTE SADIK-KAHN. how transportation would affect the GETTY IMAGES. city at large, and created a mandate for city staff. Marking out the mile- stones for improvement made the DANI SIMONS, FORMER NYC DOT department’s activities more trans- DIRECTOR OF parent, earning public trust. STRATEGIC Bold leaders inaugurated new COMMUNICATIONS. ASSOCIATED PRESS. management strategies to empower staff. Most significantly, leaders created a culture of “getting things BILL PEDUTO, MAYOR done” even if it meant upending OF PITTSBURGH. ASSOCIATED PRESS. past practice and would not accept anything less. To achieve this change in culture, some transportation agency heads filled key staff roles with reform advocates who were well versed in local politics. Commissioner Sadik- Khan’s agenda for change benefited from like-minded advocates, such as Jon Orcutt, her choice as head of her strategy office; Andy Wiley-Schwartz, from Project for Public Spaces, as assistant commissioner for public space; and Dani Simons, formerly at Transportation Alternatives, as director of strategic communica- tions. In Pittsburgh, Scott Bricker, executive director of Bike Pittsburgh, the bicycle advocacy organization, was nominated in 2014 by Mayor Bill Peduto to the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, the plan- ning organization responsible for setting transportation funding for a ten-county area. Decades earlier, Mayor Neil Goldschmidt of Portland took a similar step when he entered office in 1973, hiring like-minded planners who had traveled to

16 Europe and strolled and biked its those sites, the city was able to secure boulevards to supplement the more permanent fixtures and move transportation department. to bigger, more visible sites. Times The leaders signaled a new culture Square is now slated for capital funds as they took the reins and unleashed to replace the temporary bollards and new management styles. As Orcutt road paint with a permanent redesign. described the environment in NYC, for Small, quick, and affordable steps years “people got used to not seeing make movement toward a bigger things done.” To signal change, the project possible. Instead of a single commissioner rewarded new ideas ribbon-cutting ceremony after months with support and encouragement, of construction hassles, a mayor and and badgered those who did not fall transportation agency head can claim into line. The sense of complacency credit as the project progresses. that tended to infiltrate large agen- cies dissipated as these bold leaders took charge. Agency Implementers In another example of a different style of management, bold leaders While we found that advocacy from pursued incremental staging of new residents was an essential first step ideas, instead of “all in one” delivery. and that the embrace of an elected Painting bike lanes and widening official is essential, without the sidewalks with temporary plastic support of the staff in city agen- bollards became common in New cies—the policy directors, operations York, Chicago, and other cities. These managers, planners, and engineers— temporary-looking redesigns of the advocates’ and leaders’ visions for street acted as proofs-of-concept, lively streets will not last. It is agency spotlighting benefits more quickly staff who find new paths to make than the average transportation ideas into operational realities and construction project. As Gabe Klein create new standards to institu- said, “I was more concerned with tionalize innovations as part of the moving quickly and improving safety agency’s culture. than I was in getting every little thing Advocates-turned-staffers right.” The secondary benefit was that can be instrumental in ensuring staff members, who had formerly that change occurs quickly. As policy faced opposition to any new idea, director and a key leader behind the could experience immediate grat- scenes at the NYC DOT (he has since ification as a result of incremental left the department), Jon Orcutt was changes. “People could see that they described as “perhaps more important were getting things done, and felt than [Commissioner] Sadik-Khan.” good about it,” said Jon Orcutt. Orcutt began his career in grassroots Projects lowered political costs by organizing in 1989, first as executive appearing experimental and imper- director of Transportation Alternatives manent; politicians did not have to and then as a founding staffer and expend all their political capital on a executive director of the Tri-State single, permanent project. New York Transportation Campaign, a nonprofit City initially marked out the pedes- dedicated to reducing car dependency trianization of Times Square with in New York, Connecticut, and New traffic barrels and cheap lawn chairs, Jersey. With his decades-long knowl- inviting people to sit. The true pilot edge of neighborhood politics and local projects for Times Square, however, motivations, Orcutt aptly developed were the smaller, less visible, tempo- policies and strategies that were rary public plazas in lesser-known responsive to local political hurdles. neighborhoods. When public use Breathing new life into an increased and benefits accrued in agency can serve to liberate and

17 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation empower staffers who are reform- Durability minded. Luann Hamilton, a director Strong alignment between civic orga- in the Chicago Department of nizations, political leadership, and Transportation with more than agency staff is essential to spark a twenty years of agency experience, major burst of innovation. In the cities was instrumental in ensuring that the we studied, informal partnerships agency could implement the ideas between the civic sector and a reform- laid out in Gabe Klein’s Chicago Fast minded city agency allowed for the Forward plan. She knew how to steer alignment of activities and enabled the projects through the right chan- innovations to take hold. BikeDenver nels and how to avoid pitfalls within worked with the city council and the institution. Wendy Feuer, public works staff to keep bicycle a longtime advocate of public art, and pedestrian priorities high on the Advocates-turned- had stints in Washington and at advo- agenda when momentum slowed cacy organizations before becoming staffers can be during the turnover between Mayor an assistant commissioner of the Hickenlooper’s and Mayor Hancock’s instrumental in NYC DOT. Her experience in public administrations. Scott Bricker of Bike art and urban design allowed her to ensuring that Pittsburgh and Mayor Bill Peduto steer and increase the public plaza struck a similar relationship to build change occurs and art programs there, elevating out Pittsburgh’s bicycle network. the work of the department beyond During Portland’s period of signifi- quickly. that of transportation. cant innovation in the early 1970s, it Agency staffers are crucial to the was Mayor Neil Goldschmidt’s strong development of new standards that relationship with neighborhood civic institutionalize innovations and ensure activists and the employment of that those new practices endure even activists in key city roles that propelled when the first generation of reformers Portland’s period of change. The leaves office. Because transportation partnership between civic activists agencies habitually “do things by the and progressive city leaders not only book,” reformers found it effective to made Portland’s 1972 Downtown literally create new books. NYC DOT Plan possible, but also enabled its staff published an urban street design execution. The significance of the manual, a direct challenge to the civic sector–government leadership “Green Book,” the longstanding, feder- relationship, however informally ally mandated engineering design developed, was publicly acknowledged guidelines published by the American when the Jane Jacobs Medal for New Association of State Highway and Ideas and Activism was awarded Transportation Officials (AASHTO). in 2010 jointly to Paul Steely White, The process of developing design executive director of Transportation standards also creates an internal Alternatives, and NYC DOT knowledge base that enables agency Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan for staffers to continue to carry out the their dedication to the livability of New practice. Finally, as we saw from York City’s streets. the cities we studied, bottom-up All three human forces for approaches can be standardized. change—civic groups, political leaders, The National Association of City and agency staff—are necessary for Transportation Officials, a member- innovation, even if they are all capable ship organization of agency staff, of making some progress on their has met this demand by publishing own. In the 1990s and early 2000s, its Urban Bikeway Design Guide and Mayor Tom Murphy of Pittsburgh Urban Street Design Guide, with other also pursued an urban development design manuals in progress. agenda that included sustainable transportation. He supported transit expansion, updated zoning codes,

18 REPORTS PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CITY TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS.

It sounds obvious, but without local engagement, local execution of provided urban design guidelines, When high-level, supportive policy state and federal and created a development fund is enacted in cities with thriving civic to encourage reinvestment in organizations, innovations are made policies is much Pittsburgh. However, lack of align- more durable. Portland stands out as more limited. ment with the county executive and a city that has taken a different urban city council and a lack of capacity transportation path from the majority among the civic organizations to of cities in the United States because support sustainable transportation of a twist of policy fate. Starting in made it difficult to expand pedestrian the late 1960s and early 1970s, the and bicycle infrastructure despite city had the trifecta of civic activism, the Mayor’s intentions. bold political leadership, and agency Furthermore, without people reorientation that our other study advocating and coordinating at the cities have experienced more recently. local level, what few reform-oriented It turned a riverfront road into a state and federal policies there are public park. It fought plans for more do not necessarily take hold. North automobile parking with a down- Carolina has had a statewide bicycle town revitalization plan. The changes policy since 1973, but many of the Portland set in motion then have state’s cities lacked the bicycle planner endured in the following decades. and agency buy-in to implement the Two top-level policy changes policy. Reform-minded Pennsylvania made the 1970s urban transportation Department of Transportation innovations part of Portland’s DNA. Secretary Allen Biehler created a local The first was the city and state deci- competitive grant program in 2010 to sion to take advantage of a new (as compel regional land-use and trans- of 1973) federal policy change that portation planning. But without civic allowed for the trade-in of highway and political alignment in Allegheny funds for transit. By trading in the County, where Pittsburgh sits, the cancelled Mount Hood Highway for region won only one grant of $25,000, yet-unknown public transportation a small sum considering that it is the and arterial road projects, Portland second-largest metropolitan region in secured a capital source for the first Pennsylvania and that there was $59.4 installment of its transit future. The million available in the first round. second major policy change was the Lack of local support and coordination legislature’s enactment of Governor can render higher-level policy much Tom McCall’s recommended state- less effective. wide farmland protection policies in

19 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation 1973. Though the law was created to protect natural resources, the creation of urban-growth boundaries limited the outward expansion of urban areas, focusing local planning efforts on more efficient uses of urban land. By fostering compact land-use planning practices that inherently supported sustainable urban transportation, Oregon essentially built durability into urban transportation innovation. The key is that the state policies were passed at the moment the civic sector was fully engaged and local politi- cians were aligned. It sounds obvious, but without local engagement, local execution of state and federal policies is much more limited. The durability of new practices can be reinforced by cities learning from one another once one city proves the viability of a new concept. When Janette Sadik-Khan took office, she and New York City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden visited Copenhagen with key staff to learn about sustainable transportation practices. Later on, Denver bicycle advocates arranged to have city planner Emily Snyder and traffic engi- neer Justin Schmitz visit New York, leading to the creation of their city’s first buffered bike lane. When Mayor Bill Peduto and County Executive Rich Fitzgerald prioritized bus rapid transit for the city of Pittsburgh, they took a cohort of business leaders, advocates, city staff, and other stakeholders to FORMER DENVER MAYOR JOHN HICKENLOOPER Cleveland to learn about the success LEADS A GROUP OF of that city’s HealthLine bus rapid BICYCLE ADVOCATES. transit project. Stakeholders often FREEWHEELIN BIKER/ FLICKR. credit study tours with widening their horizons, leading to solutions to their local problems. These study tours offer an intense form of peer-to-peer learning and firsthand experience that is often critical for mayors and agency heads in reorienting governance for more livable streets.

20 idea The Cycle of Change pressure inspire support

city civic leadership vanguard frames transportation make ideas palateable in a new way and and demand change changes agency culture and practice

empower agency unleash support champions

shepherd innovation through agency channels and develop more civic, city, new standards energize and agency inspire champions embrace the idea

Change happens at scale and more ideas emerge Conclusions and Recommendations

22 That resident-led approaches are in their city staff. In effect, municipal necessary to combat unwanted proj- leaders have taken a page out of the ects is not a new idea; citizens have civic activists’ playbook. led the redirection of governments Yet the success of the resident-led throughout history. New York City approaches behind the urban trans- and Portland owe today’s presence portation innovations examined in this of local civic organizations in part to report is an aberration in the current the burgeoning environmental and landscape of American urban devel- social movements that swept the opment. The existing auto-oriented country in the 1960s and 70s and to policies and institutional structures the environmental laws that gave remain strong. Multiple beneficiaries residents’ challenges legal standing. including construction labor unions Shifts in attitudes about urban plan- continue to defend them. Most metro- ning took place at a time in which a politan regions in the U.S. continue to willingness—and legal basis—to chal- widen roads and infrastructure that lenge authority and critical views of cater to the automobile, in line with the establishment were growing: Jane the overall policies and goals of the Jacobs’s The Death and Life of Great federal government as set forth in the American Cities was published in 1961, 1950s. Examples abound: Cleveland, and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, Ohio, is reconstructing its inner-belt which was instrumental in launching freeway, which is a confluence of I-90, the modern environmental move- I-71, and I-77, although automobile ment, was published in 1962. Citizens trips are diminishing and population were further empowered to challenge is stable or declining; Michigan State governmental decisions regarding Highway planners want to expand their local environment through the Interstate 94 through Detroit, demol- National Environmental Policy Act ishing eleven pedestrian bridges in the and the Clean Air Act, enacted in process; and Louisville, Kentucky, is still the 1970s. These social movements considering adding another highway translated into a renewed focus on ring. Nationwide, there continue to be neighborhoods decades ago, stopping more examples of highway expansion many infrastructure projects from than there are of successful urban destroying cities. transportation innovation. What is new during the recent Many federal and state policies history of urban transportation inno- continue to hinder urban innovation vation is that bottom-up approaches rather than encourage it. Some state have been more often applied by highway departments, despite being multiple sectors working in concert called departments of “transporta- toward similar goals. More energy is tion,” hold to design standards and spent saying yes to “good” projects practices that inhibit innovation within than no to “bad” projects. In today’s the entire range of options for moving process, more municipal leaders people and goods through places, and city agency staff have adopted and they prioritize the assets they bottom-up approaches akin to civic own – state highways – over serving organizing. City leaders at the top of the broader mobility needs of their the pyramid have pursued incremental constituents. “tactical urbanism” projects. They The longstanding and current have evaluated each phase before obstacles that citizens and govern- pressing on, just as advocates did ment leaders still face should not be when measuring the benefits of new discounted. Nor should we assume innovations. City leaders have even that all cities are on the cusp of embedded advocates or other people change. Looking for an ideal window outside conventional power structures of opportunity in any city where there

23 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation might be well-organized grassroots political argument. For example, actors to introduce an idea, a high- technical capacity can debunk ranking official with the authority established forecasting norms that to adopt it and challenge others in inevitably purport to demonstrate power, and finally, an empowered city the “need” to widen highways, staff to carry out and standardize regardless of realistic demand and the innovation, shows that the effort fiscal resources. is great indeed. Only a handful out of tens of thousands of cities stand out as having experienced that moment Have the courage to take on reform, of change. Yet the swiftness by and be prepared. While the ideas which visionary civic, government, for reform often originate at the and agency leaders have positively grassroots level, a bold, high-ranking More energy is affected the streets and urban life in political figure who is willing to take spent saying yes to our key case studies shows the impor- risks and endure short-term criti- “good” projects tance of this often-frustrating pursuit. cism is necessary for reform to take root and grow. But everyone can than no to “bad” To increase the prospects for urban prepare for such conflicts. Leaders projects. transportation innovation, supporters are more willing to take unpopular must do a combination of the stands when they have the support following: of a committed band of voters, such as the Riverfront for People coali- Encourage civic organizations to tion in Portland or Transportation emerge and reframe transporta- Alternatives in New York City, tion issues as quality-of-life issues. even if that committed band does Being able to move around the city not represent the majority of the is a worthy goal in its own right. population. Sometimes, a strong, Many civic and grassroots organiza- unexpected leader can be recruited tions made tremendous headway, from outside the conventional however, when transportation was structure to accelerate and inspire not their ultimate goal or when reform. transportation goals were purpose- fully reframed to support another Position advocates on the inside goal with broad appeal, such as to catalyze a reorientation of city cleaner air or economic opportunity. agency and staff culture. Durability of new transport policy paradigms Reinforce public support materializes when bureaucratic through political organizing and structures adopt reform. The ability leveraging technical expertise or of former activists, like Jon Orcutt in data. Grassroots organizations New York City, to reform an agency have the most power to instigate depends on the leader’s ability not change, whether through catching only to understand how the bureau- the attention of an elected offi- cracy and local politics work, but cial or through building demand also to appeal to employees and with the majority of a population. insist on a new way of getting Demonstration of technical exper- things done. tise and providing evidence of wide benefits can persuade elected officials who need to consider the impact of a reform and craft a

24 PORTLAND’S TOM MCCALL PARK AT NIGHT. GETTY IMAGES.

Perpetuate new norms through can require integrated land-use changing agency standards. For and transportation planning, as in reforms to outlast mayoral terms, California, or limit urban growth they must eventually be codified to encourage compact develop- into agency practice—that is, its ment, as in Oregon. States can standards, processes, performance also create competitive funds to measurements, and day-to-day reward sound regional coordination, operations. Leaders at all levels as Pennsylvania did. The federal need to push for new practices to government can commit more be officially adopted and carried funding toward sustainable urban out. Successful reformers must transportation and adopt perfor- redefine how the success of a trans- mance metrics that recognize urban portation system is measured so vitality over vehicle throughput. that all subsequent practices meet Meaningful and durable the same standards and achieve a change takes hold when all levels of similar reformist goal. Groups like society—residents, leaders, and the the National Association of City middle bureaucracy—take up the Transportation Officials have an cause. Any single level can create important role to play in this step. change. But the overarching lesson is clear: the potential and success Create federal and state poli- for urban transportation innovation cies that recognize and reward is greatest when citizen activists small-scale urban transportation and top-level local government reform and tip the scales toward officials are working in tandem on innovation. Although policies from bottom-up approaches to challenge broader levels of government still the current transportation policy require smart implementation by structure. local leaders, these policies should push cities toward innovation. At the very least, states should keep the door to innovation open, rather than obstruct it. States

25 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Abrupt change in direction in 1970s continues to inform Portland's progress today. Portland

Portland’s culture of planning has Civic Environment: received accolades and been the “We start with our block” subject of much analysis, so our anal- ysis of its story from the late 1960s So said Bill Scott, an early activist in and early 70s is an interpretation Portland’s story, “We realized that 1 based on our theory of change in there were things that we could do to transportation. We sought to under- start building the better world that stand how Portland’s citizens, its we realized would be a lot harder on council members, mayor, and overall the national and international level.” governance departed from common Portland would have gone the way transportation planning practice in of many other places were it not for the United States. No one living in citizens and neighborhood groups Portland in 1969 would have guessed that instigated a movement to that the city would become the exem- reclaim the city in the late 1960s and plar for sustainable transportation throughout the 70s. Many citizens in forty years later. At mid-century, Portland challenged the establish- Portland had adopted cars as early ment and its vision of the city using and quickly as every other city in the the organizing tools they had learned PORTLAND DOWNTOWN, United States, and it had dismantled in the antiwar, feminist, and civil SURROUNDED WITH its streetcar and transit system back rights movements in the mid-1960s. FREEWAYS AND A SURFEIT OF PARKING, 1968. in the 1920s, before many other cities. Disillusionment with national politics CAFEUNKNOWN.COM. As happened in other American cities, made these idealists return home. by the late 1960s, Portland’s elected This shifted to a desire to create officials and regional authorities, neighborhoods where families could along with its civic elite—businessmen comfortably raise children. They and property owners—had disinvested were just “people who wanted a from the transit system to make way better neighborhood and a better for cars and regarded the dismantling place to live.” of old neighborhoods as necessary for Close to home, the business elite, modernization. In a few short years, the city council, the state highway the direction had changed signifi- department, and other large institu- cantly. Perhaps the most remarkable tions were still following the standard part is that the abrupt change in direc- course of planning. Portland State tion that occurred between 1970 and University and Good Samaritan 1975 continues to inform Portland’s Hospital were planning campuses in progress today. We found that it was a the suburbs. Long-range transpor- rare and unusual alignment of circum- tation plans approved as late as 1969 stance and leadership during the still showed how new highways would 1970s that set the city on its political crisscross the entire city. Historic build- and cultural path toward sustainable ings seemed doomed for the wrecking transportation, a path still being ball to make way for parking lots. The followed today. assuredness by which these plans

27 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation of access developed into one about downtown revival as a civic space for NEIL GOLDSCHMIDT, FORMER MAYOR OF the middle class. PORTLAND, 1980. The rallying language was only the GETTY IMAGES. cover on top of robust activism that built political support for city livability. The aforementioned Riverfront for People, formed in 1969 by stay-at- home mom Allison Belcher, architect Robert Belcher, and fellow architect Jim Howell, held gatherings, often in the form of picnics along the water- front, to renew citizen interest in It was a rare and waterfront development and in the unusual alignment downtown area. Riverfront for People joined forces with Ron Buel, chief of of circumstance staff to then-City Commissioner and leadership Neil Goldschmidt, to form the group were discussed drew the ire of those Sensible Transportation Options for during the 1970s who had participated in movements People, or STOP, which soon became elsewhere. Keen activists could see a leader in the region’s anti-freeway that set the city on the city’s proverbial drawing table movement. on its political that there was a “conversion threat” Top on STOP’s agenda was to to the city, where the powers that be defeat the proposed Mount Hood and cultural path were turning outwards toward the Freeway, submitted by the Oregon toward sustainable suburbs, without regard for existing Highway Department without citizen neighborhoods or the desire of the consultation and scheduled to receive transportation. people. Determination to preserve hefty federal funds as part of the 1956 the natural environment and a Federal Highway Act. The freeway reaction to the negative effects of would have cut a five-and-a-half-mile road building and sprawl in other swath through historic residential metropolitan areas across the country districts and destroyed 1,700 homes (such as those recounted in Rites of and many businesses in southeast Way, the story of a neighborhood that Portland. In 1969, the freeway was defeated the Boston freeway plans) considered a “done deal,” with the prompted some Portlanders to iden- federal government providing 90 tify downtown revival and the defeat percent of the funds and the state of the Mount Hood Freeway as their setting aside a 10-percent match; main goals. the city’s government seemed to A leading strategy for Portland have little say over the matter. STOP citizen activists was to reframe their joined the Southeast Legal Defense opposition in terms that could draw Fund, founded by activist Betty support from the general public. Merten (who successfully led the fight Support for the removal of Harbor against a proposed parking garage Drive, the highway that cut the down- above a parking lot, a space that is town area off from the waterfront, now Pioneer Courthouse Square) and gave rise to Riverfront for People. Charlie Merten, a prominent public-in- A longstanding perception about terest lawyer, to fight the Mount Hood the lack of auto parking—a percep- Freeway. tion that led to parking structure The actions of STOP were just proposals—was converted into one some of the many instances of about increasing access for people Portland citizens inserting themselves to the downtown core. The framing into the planning process, in effect

28 redefining this process. The focus of Downtown Plan was “an opportunity their work was not on picketing, but for the citizens of Portland to say: they demanded an environmental Let’s first decide how we want to use impact statement for the Mount Hood our Downtown and then determine Freeway, as was their right thanks to what tools are necessary to achieve the recent passage of the National our land use decisions” and everything Environmental Protection Act. STOP else—including transportation— members sat on the Oregon Highway would follow (City of Portland, 1972). Department’s Citizens Advisory At that moment in 1972, Portland Committee, went to county, city, and turned toward its city center and neighborhood meetings about the neighborhoods while the rest of the matter, and essentially evolved into country seemed to turn away. And in citizen planners, armed with technical 1972 another thing happened which knowledge about the highway but triggered the second element of the advocating on behalf of the neighbor- reform formula: an election was held hoods. Notably, members of STOP for Mayor. were also involved with campaigning for political candidates they felt would support their mission, one of whom was Neil Goldschmidt. Advocates Become Politicians The collective efforts of citizens built momentum for neighborhood pres- In 1969, the Portland City Council was ervation and downtown renewal composed entirely of white males that resulted in a culture of working whose average age was 61, most of together. The reactivated public whom had been in office for multiple interest in revitalizing the city’s core terms. The adopted transportation ultimately coalesced into the 1972 plan for the region called for multiple Downtown Redevelopment Plan, limited-access highways slicing which represented a “critical return to through existing neighborhoods. By public life” (Peirce and Guskind 1993). 1974, both the composition of that Further, the idea that downtown council and the contents of that plan is “everyone’s neighborhood” was had changed dramatically. emblematic of the citizen activists’ The late 1960s and early 70s were overall emphasis on neighborhoods. a fluid moment for Portland politics, An in-depth participatory plan- as power passed between the good ning process was conducted for the ol’ boy network who had stood guard Downtown Plan, one that arrived at for decades and new leaders who “doable” guidelines that were shorn of embodied the ethos of social justice obtuse technical language. Citizens gleaned from movements sweeping working alongside planners, busi- the country. Three longstanding ness leaders, and city government all city council members retired after developed a common language and the 1970 election, making room for understanding that made the vision new members, who happened to be for the city more tangible (Hovey young and passionate, including Neil 2003). The 1972 Downtown Plan Goldschmidt. Goldschmidt, who later marked the start of Portland’s tradi- became mayor of Portland in 1973, tion of thinking practically about goals adopted the STOP coalition’s goal of and outcomes as well as its culture of defeating the Mount Hood Freeway demystifying planning, and it showed and thrust the issue into the political Portlanders that the hard work of arena. As Goldschmidt recounted it, getting everyone on board could “timing is everything.” At thirty-two, “result in action, not paralysis” (Peirce he was roughly half the age of his and Guskind 1993). Critically, the 1972 predecessor Terry Schrunk.

29 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Portland’s civic movements fit as a means of protecting exurban nicely with Goldschmidt’s political resource lands from sprawl. McCall style and priorities; not coincidentally, not only championed farmland pres- those citizen activists were the very ervation policies, which indirectly ones who campaigned for his elec- helped preserve inner-city neighbor- tion. Previously a legal-aid attorney, hoods, he also directed the chair of the he first learned about the growing highway commission, Glenn Jackson, sentiment against urban freeways to accede to Portlanders’ desire to when he canvassed neighborhoods limit urban highway expansion. McCall while campaigning for the city council and Goldschmidt—a Republican with in 1970 (Thompson 2007). When rural interests and a Democratic with urban interests—also collaborated on strengthening the Portland region’s transit system and regional plan- ning mechanisms. The early 1970s in Oregon were one of the few instances our study found of a state government actively assisting urban innovation. While the activists were adept at community organizing and polit- ical campaigns, they asserted new technical prowess. New knowledge strengthened the citizen campaign against the Mount Hood Freeway project. A sympathetic expert working with the Oregon Highway Department on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)–required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) leaked the results of the EIS, which made it clear that the project would produce unde- sirable consequences for downtown PORTLAND DOWNTOWN. Goldschmidt won the 1972 mayoral Portland and home and rental prices STUART SEEGER/FLICKR. election, he set out to navigate surrounding the freeway. Assertions the conflicting desires of the city’s by activists and City Hall about the citizen advocates and the Oregon project’s detrimental effects were Department of Transportation. confirmed (OTREC 2010). He capitalized on the energy and A change in federal transporta- momentum already ignited by activ- tion policy gave the locals the positive ists and “rode it like a skillful surfer on a argument they had previously lacked. wave” according to Betty Merten. The Under the 1973 Interstate Transfer 1972 Downtown Plan was also strongly Provision of the Federal Highway Act, aligned with Goldschmidt’s goals a result of a compromise stemming for the city; while its development from congressional disagreement predated his election he served as a over the level of state control of figure who could navigate the political federal transportation funding, the shoals for implementation. city and state could for the first time Political leadership for urban transfer the set-aside federal funds transportation reform also came intended for the Mount Hood highway from the state in the early 1970s— project to other regional transit and an Oregon aberration that did not highway projects. Previously, saying occur in Illinois or New York. Governor no to an urban highway also meant McCall, a conservationist, viewed saying no to hundreds of millions of Portland residential reinvestment federal dollars. For the first time, a

30 region could say no to the project but region, cementing a culture of regional still say yes to the money. Backed by coordination that has since become a his constituents, Goldschmidt easily hallmark of Portland’s transportation convinced Governor McCall. In a governance. The agreed-upon series of additional political moves, transit plans resulted in light rail for Highway Department Commissioner the Portland region. Construction Jackson finally agreed, and with that, began in 1982, and the first line of the the Mount Hood Freeway project was metropolitan area’s extensive light deleted from the plan. Yet approx- rail network opened in 1986. Plans imately $500 million (1974 dollars) for the region’s light rail system also stayed in the region for other road and inspired an overhaul of the city’s bus transit projects. network, changing it to a gridded But the 1972 Downtown Plan system rather than one solely serving The early 1970s in coupled with the Mount Hood Freeway downtown Portland. Portland’s Oregon were one of reversal meant much more than stop- neighborhoods were woven into the ping a highway—it led to Portland’s transportation plans. the few instances continued sustainable development, our study found of in which transportation plays a key role. As Elsa Coleman, a prominent Change Within a state government anti-freeway activist and member of Change inside city government helped STOP, attested “. . . it wasn’t just about to maintain momentum from the actively assisting stopping the Mount Hood Freeway; defeat of the highway and build on the urban innovation. it was trying to organize support for goodwill and guidance that resulted a different way in Portland.” More from the 1972 Downtown Plan. Mayor tangibly, any roads that were built in Goldschmidt had stripped transpor- the region further conformed to the tation planning responsibilities away advocates’ agenda because of the from the city engineer’s office and required compliance with the state’s formed a new transportation planning land-use laws, passed in 1973 by the office that he staffed with reform-ori- legislature to balance urban inter- ented professionals, many of whom ests with the state’s vast agricultural had visited Europe and experienced a interests. The densification that is wholly different kind of development. critical to successful transit systems The planning department ballooned was bolstered by the requirement from a handful of individuals to thir- that all cities in the state limit the ty-three overnight, and this team, geographic extent of their growth with its execution of public transit and with urban-growth boundaries. The pedestrian spaces, demonstrated to 1972 Downtown Plan provided further the public that the arduous planning guidance on how the city’s core would process resulted in benefits. This type accommodate more growth with of change from within happened fewer cars. Though the region ulti- again in 1993, when City Commissioner mately submitted a combined list Earl Blumenauer (who had been in the of transit and road projects to the 1973 state legislature which approved Federal Highway Administration in land use planning) hired bicycle advo- the late 1970s, the main victory that cate Mia Birk as a staff member in defined the region’s break from the Portland’s Bureau of Transportation. status quo was its control over its own The founding members of STOP transportation system through its and other reform advocates continued “flexing” of federal funds. to take engaged roles in city and Along with state and regional regional administrations, grassroots policies, the trade-in funding created organizing, and elected office. Elsa a deep well of financial resources for Coleman, who fought the parking arterial streets as well as for transit, structures downtown, eventually pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in the

31 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation became the downtown parking by citizens, ensuring that the body manager, making sure that any reflects the citizen demand to create additional development adhered to a region-wide vision for the metropol- parking guidelines. That the “guerrilla itan area (Cotugno and Seltzer 2011). planners” in the early 1970s became TriMet was initially a relatively weak professional planners and local elected agency with very little capacity, but a representatives kept the city on a 1969 state law allowed transit districts steady path for decades to come. to raise taxes through the payroll tax, building capacity within the agency and establishing it as a partner with State Policies Reinforce Metro. TriMet builds and operates transportation infrastructure and Local Change services, while Metro evaluates and Since the 1970s, It is worth noting that at the time of plans corridors. These regional regula- Portland has the Mount Hood Freeway fight, the tions and agencies embodied the new anti-freeway movement in Portland direction of the Portland metropolitan charged forward was not pervasive, and the young area and have succeeded because of on a different mayor’s outspoken opposition to the the high level of inter-jurisdictional project was unpopular. Goldschmidt cooperation. path based on its barely won reelection in 1976, when Continuing a dramatic path of expanded transit Frank Ivancie ran against him on a innovation feels uncertain today, platform of reviving the highway with several individuals character- system, pedes- project. Each step of the fight against izing Portland’s planning practices as the freeway was a narrow victory, “ossified.” In 2015, controversy rages trian and bicycle as citizens and government officials over whether or not Portland will infrastructure, and alike had to employ a range of policy allocate resources simply to maintain tools to keep the opportunities for its streets at a state-of-good-repair measured land-use change relevant. standard, and the TriMet expansion policies. State policies and new regional which continued steadily apace for institutions played key roles in imple- decades has slowed. A recent Oregon menting Portland’s vision for land-use Department of Transportation and transportation planning long proposal to widen Interstate 5, after the civic battles. Statewide which would have benefited auto land-use laws mandated urban- commuters to suburban Washington growth boundaries (UGB) for urban State and harmed inner-city residen- areas and were regulated by the tial neighborhoods in north Portland, Land Conservation and Development was defeated only as recently as Commission established in 1973. In 2013, showing that even the Portland 1977, the state also established the region must fight some rearguard Metro Council, a regional governing actions against the conventional body to oversee the land within the auto-dominant practices of the past. Portland metropolitan area UGB. That said, dramatic innovation seems Metro would adopt and enforce unnecessary. Since the 1970s, Portland regional plans and make all the has charged forward on a different region’s transportation decisions in path based on its expanded transit collaboration with TriMet, the region’s system, pedestrian and bicycle infra- transit agency, itself also created in structure, and measured land-use the fertile ground of the late 1960s and policies. Subsequent updates to the early 1970s. The Metro Council serves Downtown Plan, such as the Central as the region’s metropolitan planning City Plan in 1988, did not reject the organization (MPO), but unlike other 1972 Downtown Plan but, rather, built MPOs, it has a home-rule charter on the central tenets of the earlier and councilors are directly elected plan and lessons learned from the

32 TILIKUM CROSSING, THE “BRIDGE defeat of the Mount Hood Freeway OF THE PEOPLE,” WILL CARRY project: start with land-use decisions LIGHT RAIL TRAINS, BUSES, CYCLISTS, PEDESTRIANS, AND and provide guidance for practical STREETCARS, BUT NOT PRIVATE “doability” rather than prescrip- VEHICLES. ASSOCIATED PRESS. tive solutions. Portland has had the benefit of financial resources for these projects since the beginning of its transformation, but strains are showing now that those federal funds have run their course. Portland’s elected leaders, its citizens, and its culture of planning have helped the city progress through economic and policy peaks and troughs. While today’s progress may not be as dramatic as tearing down highways, what makes Portland stand apart is that for decades after its initial burst of innovation in the early 1970s, it has carved out a wholly different path of urban development.

33 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Citibikes placed throughout New York Street re-design advances from the margins to become a core economic and livability issue.

lots of new bike lanes

34 New York City

Since 2007, New York City has trans- time of heightened environmental formed its streets with the installation consciousness. It initially advocated of hundreds of bike lanes, dozens of for bicycles as the best form of trans- public plazas formed from underper- portation to counteract the negative forming street space, and the passage effects of oil consumption and envi- 2 of legislation to enforce publication of ronmental degradation. Though it was traffic crash data, to allow bikes into first known for attention-grabbing office buildings, and in 2014, to lower street-theater stunts—such as part- the citywide speed limit from 30 to 25 nering with bike messengers to stage miles per hour. The city also launched a ride/protest in response to Mayor improvements to its transit system Koch’s 1987 ban on bicycles on Fifth, with Select Bus Service, a version Park, and Madison Avenues—for years, of bus rapid transit, and Citibike, a many of its actions had minimal effect 6,000-bike, 330-station bike-share on the city and were unpopular with system, with plans for future expan- the public. In the case of Koch’s bicycle sion. The city weathered the 2008 ban, for example, the city backed away recession as it pursued these trans- from the ban only when the state formations, and for the first time, the declared it invalid on a technicality. The PLANTERS AND CHAIRS wild streets and unbridled traffic of group’s original reputation seemed MARK A NEW PEDESTRIAN New York City began to be tamed. marginal to mainstream concerns. AREA ON A MANHATTAN STREET. BILL DEERE. Distinctive as it is, the New York As T.A. matured, built its policy City story perfectly illustrates a expertise, increased its membership, universal model of how ideas started and expanded its mission to include with civic activist groups, were then more than cycling concerns, it gained embraced by elected and appointed momentum and became a political leaders, and were ultimately institu- force. Its successes include gaining tionalized by staff in the bureaucracy. 24-hour subway access for bicycles in 1993, a Bicycle Master Plan produced by the city with T.A. consultation in Advocates Lay the 1997, and even funding from the New York State Public Health Department Groundwork to improve walkability for senior citi- There may be no better example of zens in 2003, a savvy political move how an advocacy group got a city to because senior citizens as a demo- adopt its agenda in recent history graphic vote at higher rates than the than the story of Transportation rest of the population. Alternatives and its role in New York T.A.’s base further expanded as City’s transformation. it built coalitions with organizations One of the oldest sustainable that sought the same goals, though transportation advocacy organiza- often from different starting points. tions in New York City, Transportation For example, it started to partner with Alternatives (T.A.) formed in 1973, a public health, senior citizen advocacy,

35 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation environmental justice, and food justice as a way of promoting the citywide organizations that shared the goal of economic development that slipped a more livable city. Bonds with other out of grasp with the loss of the 2012 transportation organizations were Olympic bid. To broaden its appeal, strengthened through the well-co- the authors of PlaNYC sought input ordinated use of tactics based on from numerous advocates in many organizational strengths. T.A. could fields and adopted some of the tap the Regional Plan Association goals that T.A. had refined over the for questions about long-term policy years. PlaNYC would become Mayor planning but would turn out its Bloomberg’s legacy as he began his members for neighborhood-scale second term and thus brought with it proposals—such as a bike lane on a a sense of urgency. specific street—in front of City Council. It was no accident that the mayor, But that failure at All of these benchmarks point an experienced corporate executive, the state capital to T.A.’s burgeoning expertise in placed other non-governmental transportation policy and its nascent professionals in his administration convinced the ability to position what started out to effectively carry out PlaNYC. He Bloomberg admin- as an urban cycling issue as an urban created the Office of Long-term livability issue. By no means was T.A. Planning and Sustainability and istration that its the only organization in New York appointed Rohit Aggarwala, a former City advocating for these changes. McKinsey management consultant energy was better Regional Plan Association, Tri-State who had contributed to the plan’s spent on transpor- Transportation Campaign, and many development, to head the office. other organizations also focused on Bloomberg also hired a new trans- tation issues over transportation reform, but T.A. portation commissioner, Janette which it had full may have benefited from its more Sadik-Khan, to meet his administra- radical beginnings, which gave the tion’s transportation goals. While authority, such as organization more room for proposing the most talked-about feature in street design, biking unusual ideas. T.A. was one of many PlaNYC’s transportation chapter organizations that laid the ground- was the idea of emulating London’s and walking. work, but it was only when there was congestion pricing program and change and alignment in the political charging a fee for autos entering the leadership and environment that T.A. core area, that proposal required was able to advance its agenda in a the approval of the state legisla- meaningful way. ture. The legislature balked – not the only example in our study of a state government thwarting urban trans- Political Environment portation reform - in spite of support from the mayor, city council, local Several external events in the business, labor, and environmental mid-2000s allowed New York City’s advocates, and major newspaper advocacy community to accelerate editorial boards. But that failure at the change. In 2007, Mayor Michael state capital convinced the Bloomberg Bloomberg published New York City’s administration that its energy was first urban sustainability plan, called better spent on transportation issues PlaNYC. The plan developed sustain- over which it had full authority, such as ability targets for several sectors, street design, biking and walking. including transportation, but really Around this time, T.A. encoun- grew from an interest in economic tered a patron who shared its goals development for the city in response in Mark Gorton, a financial services to its estimation that it was on target entrepreneur who further strength- to add one million people by 2030. ened the campaign. Angered by having Then-Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff to fight cars on his bike commute from spearheaded the development of his home on the Upper West Side to the plan, seeing its rising prominence

36 his office in Tribeca, Gorton endowed With the introduction of the new Transportation Alternatives as well transportation commissioner, the as Project for Public Spaces, another leadership of the mayor, financial nonprofit organization that special- resources, growing political prowess, izes in civic engagement, with the and a reframing of desired trans- financial resources to develop a vision portation changes, New York City’s that would redefine New York City’s moment of opportunity opened transportation future. In his view, the wide. On the advocacy side, T.A. and compelling argument would not be its members attended hundreds of how one traveled, but how people’s community board meetings, testified quality of life and their neighborhood at dozens of city council hearings, and sent thousands of letters of support PAUL STEELY WHITE, to elected officials. T.A.’s more sophis- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ticated research and deepening OF TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES. technical knowledge expanded its role BRIAN VERNOR/FLICKR. to the extent that community boards and City Hall would often call upon T.A. representatives to serve as tech- nical experts at community meetings. Similar to the citizen-hosted picnics along the Portland waterfront in 1969, T.A. helped neighborhoods host block parties and play streets from Soundview, Bronx, to East New York, Brooklyn, to Jackson Heights, Queens. Neighborhood by neighborhood, it reinforced its message that transpor- vitality could be improved. Accordingly, tation is a livability issue. Support for the New York City Streets Renaissance the livable-streets agenda grew. campaign was launched in 2006 and charged with choosing iconic places in the city in which to demonstrate the potential of streets as public space. Changes within the DOT The changes that T.A. sought in urban Commissioner Sadik-Khan adopted transportation were reframed as a the framework of livability and sought livability issue. urban transportation reform through Gorton strengthened the many changes in her agency and advocates’ efforts by launching throughout city government by first Streetsblog, a blog that became a retooling her department. In 2008, the means of disseminating information city adopted a fully developed Safe about city transportation policy and Routes for Seniors Program (which events. He had become frustrated was seeded by that earlier, small New that the press paid little attention York State funding for T.A.), making to issues that, in his mind, should be it a part of the DOT’s safety unit. The as important as crime. Indeed, since NYC DOT installed its first physically 2000, more people in New York City protected bike lanes—an exception have died annually by traffic fatalities to the design of streets throughout than by gun wounds. Streetsblog the United States and a 180-degree was one of the first media vehicles to turnaround from the days of Koch’s politicize local transportation matters, bike ban. To reset the work of the and it gave the impression that DOT’s traffic engineers, the city sustainable transportation issues had created its own design standards with a growing constituency. Politicians the publication of the New York City paid attention. Street Design Manual in 2010. Most

37 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation important, the department received The initial window of opportunity, the sanction for these changes from the resultant regulatory reforms, and the city’s legal department and the Office changes in practice built capacity in of Management and Budget, which the city for more ambitious innova- have for decades relied on highway tions with fundamental lasting power. design standards as the guide by New York City launched a 6,000-bike, which to judge the city’s liability for its 330-station bike-share program in streets. In doing so, the DOT overcame 2013, with plans for expansion. But an enormous bureaucratic obstacle. there was more to come, when Mayor Additional DOT-led programs Bill de Blasio, Mayor Bloomberg’s reinforced the advocacy community’s successor, committed to transporta- goal of a livable city, not just more tion improvements initiated during biking. Tens of thousands of regular the Bloomberg years. This continued citizens, not limited to bicycle advo- commitment was all the more stark cates, visited the city’s first Summer when compared to his disavowal of Streets (New York City’s version of his predecessor in most other arenas. Latin America’s ciclovia-style street Mayor de Blasio backed T.A.’s demand openings) in 2009. Play Streets, from New York State legislature to a program that promoted street lower the speed limit in New York City closures as a stimulus for more as a part of the city’s commitment physical activity in dozens of neighbor- to Vision Zero, a program to elimi- hoods, become an officially sanctioned nate traffic fatalities. At each crucial program by the Department of moment in the political process, intro- Transportation and the Department duction of the reform was backed by of Health in 2010. The DOT commis- T.A. and thousands of its members. sioned Jan Gehl Architects, a longtime The majority of city-led reforms in proponent of human-scale street urban transportation succeeded design, to analyze priorities for liva- with direct or indirect support from bility and publish its findings in a T.A., whether in the form of turning 50-page report, World Class Streets. members out to community meetings All of these initiatives demonstrated or giving input on the framing of to the public that change on the street issues or even contributing to the is indeed possible. development of design manuals Finally, regulatory changes before their release. supported by the commissioner Each of the bigger wins in New and advocates, such as the Bikes York City represents tens of smaller, in Buildings law in 2009 and the itinerant struggles, such as a multi- 2011 law that requires the New year campaign to close one entrance York Police Department to publish to Prospect Park so that cyclists and a monthly record of traffic crashes pedestrians could enjoy the park and summonses, ended decades-old without the intrusion of cars. But once practices of disregard for bicyclists the advocacy group consolidated its and pedestrians on New York City’s support and paired it with mayoral streets. New York City was experi- and commissioner leadership that encing momentum like never before. instilled reform throughout the city governance structure, urban trans- portation innovation appeared to be unleashed. Gains in urban transporta- tion improved New York City overall.

NYC DOT STREET SAFETY CAMPAIGN, INITIATED IN 2012. AGENT J/FLICKR.

38 39 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation New York City’s who had formerly served as a Transportation Innovation legislative director for the state senate, shaped the newly formed Future organization’s political strategies. Mayor Bill de Blasio, who took office The city also took on reform- in January 2014, has continued the minded staff around the same time momentum with the groundwork in relatively short order. Mayor de established by New York City’s Blasio hired Wiley Norvell, a former advocacy community. An early sign communications director for T.A., of potential is Mayor de Blasio’s and appointed Polly Trottenberg endorsement of and the city’s as the NYC DOT commissioner. adoption of Vision Zero in February Commissioner Trottenberg, a former Innovation in much 2014, a citywide goal to reduce traffic legislative director to Senator Daniel fatalities to zero by 2025. A program Moynihan and former chief of staff of the rest of the initially created in Sweden, Vision Zero to Senator Chuck Schumer, was takes a comprehensive approach to a transportation reformist and state-controlled quelling traffic chaos through design was serving as under secretary for MTA is rare. as well as through enforcement and policy at the U.S. Department of education. This entails a NYC DOT Transportation when she received partnership with the New York Police the call from New York City. Mayor Department (NYPD), which would be de Blasio adopted Vision Zero as a first for New York City. the primary strategy for NYC DOT, Our study found that success in and Commissioner Trottenberg one area leads to success in others and was recruited specifically to oversee that reform can gather momentum the complex legislative initiatives as it progresses, even when elected that it would require from the state offices turn over to new occupants, while continuing on the trajectory as long as the civic advocacy sector established during the Bloomberg continues to thrive. The adoption years. Once the state legislative of Vision Zero and its first win, the session ended in June, she hired decrease in the citywide speed limit T.A.’s Juan Martinez to lead the NYC from 30 to 25 miles per hour, follows DOT’s strategic initiatives to oversee the same trajectory as innovations her programs. With persistent in the previous administration, but campaigning, the support of NYC this reform happened much faster. A Transportation Commissioner new lobbying organization, Families Trottenberg, and a reframing of the for Safe Streets, formed in January issue of “traffic fatalities” in stark 2014 after pedestrian fatalities spiked personal terms, advocates were able in 2013 and early 2014, when more to quickly win a campaign to lower the than 30 percent of the victims were speed limit in June 2014. children. Victims’ families banded Throughout this process, the together in their grief and decided to city demonstrated that it holds the seek a reduced city speed limit as their key ingredients for transportation first goal. innovation: an overarching vision, This goal involved going outside well-planted reformists in the mayor’s city authority and asking state office and the NYC DOT; the backing legislators for permission to change of politically savvy advocates who the city’s speed limit because of offer powerful, personal perspectives arcane regulations from the 1970s. on the need for safer streets; and Additional resources were needed. many reform-minded NYC DOT T.A.’s then-director of campaigns, staff that stayed on under the new Caroline Samponaro, and its then- administration. Commissioner legislative director, Juan Martinez, Trottenberg and Mayor de Blasio have

40 PEDESTRIANIZED ZONES NEAR TIMES SQUARE, NEW YORK. BILL DEERE.

demonstrated they want to continue Hudson Yards, a major real estate on the path of change that defined the development on top of the Hudson Bloomberg/Sadik-Khan era. rail yards, is another exception: the Given that this next phase of city government realized the No. innovation involves the cooperation 7 line extension as an economic of the NYPD, this campaign will not development project (it was originally only need leadership from the NYC part of Doctoroff’s Olympic-bid DOT to find tangible ways of showing master plan). Although it is an MTA the public that progress is being project, it was not instigated by the made, it will also need strong, steady MTA. support from Mayor de Blasio to Although there has been reform find common ground and foster that required state involvement, city- interagency cooperation. focused initiatives will always have a A second challenge is how smoother launch. Regardless of the subjugated the city is to state or mayor and commissioner, reformers even regional powers. The dramatic will need to rally constituents to progress a committed vanguard shake the regional authorities and of activists could make on street state elected officials out of their old redesign is a stark contrast to the ways. New organizations continue continued political stalemates which to agitate for change; in addition to stymie progress for NYC’s subway Families for Safer Streets, the Riders and bus system. Since transit riders in Alliance, formed in 2011 to organize NYC are far more numerous than transit riders, has reinvigorated the bicyclists, the political system’s community-level political constituency seeming indifference to the former for improved transit service. The and responsiveness to the latter civic community’s ability to develop can only be explained as a failure of creative strategies that test outdated governance: that the Governor and thinking will contribute to more legislature in distant Albany control departures from the status quo. So the buses and subways, while the far, their impact has endured the Mayor and City Council have more transition from one mayor to the next authority over the streetscape. If and, hopefully, will continue for many state and agency leadership adopt a years to come. fresh view of transit in New York City, it is not impossible that it would undergo a similar kind of transformation.

41 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Economic reinvention and new leadership prompt new approaches to transportation.

42 Pittsburgh

As in many other innovative urban Civic Vanguard transportation cities, the gains in Much of Pittsburgh’s urban develop- Pittsburgh are best understood as ment and transportation system a departure from the city’s past, resulted from a top-down approach and in this case, it is a break with the controlled by large institutions. As 3 city’s long history of partnerships early as the 1930s, civic elites—often between the business elite and the chief executives and managers of politicians. Pittsburgh’s deindustrial- major steel, construction, financial, ization brought decades of systemic natural resource extraction, and other economic challenges and depopula- companies headquartered in tion. With a weak city government, Pittsburgh—drove the city’s develop- a jurisdictionally fragmented region, ment agenda. Executives partnered and a lack of state and city funding, with government to successfully elim- the city did not coalesce around inate the blight, smoke, flooding, and sustainable transportation until pollution that marred the downtown very recently. area. This resulted in some ironic Recent complementary forces— turns, such as the 1940s ban on coal- Pittsburgh’s reorientation away from burning furnaces in downtown ROBERTO CLEMENTE manufacturing and toward higher BRIDGE, PITTSBURGH. Pittsburgh by Mayor David Lawrence. education, medicine, and technology KRZYSIEK/FLICKR. More significantly, though, Lawrence in the early 2000s and its desire to pioneered the formal organization of retain highly educated, young profes- private business interests, and it was sionals—gave rise to new approaches during this period that Pittsburgh’s and new leadership that started to centralized approach to economic challenge the longstanding polit- development solidified. ical mechanics behind the region’s Influential institutions repre- economic development agenda. sented both private and public Progressive politicians who previously interests, but participation was had to engage with longstanding limited and supported an overarching party politics were no longer so economic development agenda beholden. Additional political changes geared toward industry and big labor. have created an alignment of Centralization on the private side was leadership and a regional vision best encapsulated by the creation of for transportation at the same time the Allegheny Conference on that state-level transportation Community Development (ACCD), a policy and funding solutions have nonprofit that conducts planning for come into play from above. This is an the region and bundles local projects enormous opportunity. to present to and negotiate with the state. On the public side were the mayor, the city council, the county executive, and the county council. Even as the partnership added

43 regional heavyweights such as and finance started to draw popula- Carnegie Mellon University and the tions back to Pittsburgh, including University of Pittsburgh through younger people. One of the earliest Strategy 21 in the 1980s, participation organizations on the scene was Bike was limited to those big players who Pittsburgh, which was incorporated would bolster the main agenda, which in 2003. Perhaps because of its typically consisted of pursuing a independence from the existing civic mega-project or major company that infrastructure, executive director could reverse the region’s decline. Scott Bricker speculated, “no one Some big projects were successful knew what to do with us [the bicycle and many others failed, but this busi- advocates].” The organization acted ness-political dynamic calcified after quickly on opportunities, as small decades of practice, limiting the infil- as those ideas might have seemed tration of new ideas or the type of at the time. bottom-up movements we found in The organization fueled its other cities in the 1960s and 1970s. budding mission with incremental The city’s economic development change, starting with items that strategies, as a reflection of its busi- “other cities took care of thirty years ness interests, often overlooked ago,” such as bike-rack installations. center-city transportation. This Because Pittsburgh has a robust became especially pronounced during network of off-street trails and the Interstate Highway build-out, as comparatively low vehicular traffic, the power of state transportation having deflated from a city of over departments grew with federal 675,000 in 1950 to one of around funding. That, combined with the fact 305,000 in 2010, cyclists were active that the City of Pittsburgh had little in spite of the lack of on-street control over its own transit system, cycling facilities. Before the city had a which was largely controlled by the bicycle master plan, Bike Pittsburgh county, justified an abdication of published a bike map that literally put transportation planning in the city. Pittsburgh’s cycling agenda in front Control over urban transportation of City Hall and caught the attention was ceded to the county and state of then-Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. seats of government. The city soon Ravenstahl, who became mayor at found itself constantly fighting to twenty-six, shared the view that fund its own plans. Any city-led effort multimodal streets should be part required corporate backers. Mayor of a city trying to reinvent itself as a Tom Murphy negotiated the North tech and innovation hub. Mayor Shore Connector with help from Ravenstahl’s sustainable transporta- corporations: the Steelers football tion initiatives were backed by team, major developers, and other then–city council member Bill Peduto business interests all had a hand in (later elected mayor in 2013). the project. A system-wide approach Once the cycling community to transportation that encompassed discovered that it had political allies, walking, biking, and transit continued it picked up significant momentum. to be viewed as secondary to the Starting in 2007, advocates pressured overall economic development the city to add more than fifty street concerns of big industry and big labor. miles of Class 2 and 3 bike lanes. In the mid-2000s, though, new Bike commuting in Pittsburgh has organizations surfaced to challenge increased by 408 percent since 2000, the hold of big business (which was and the city is currently eleventh in itself declining) and added new the U.S. for its share of bicycle perspectives. Efforts starting in the commuters. As the cycling community 2000s to orient the city’s economy grew, it became more technically toward education, health services, attuned and could demand

44 improvements of greater complexity. business-oriented Pittsburgh In 2013, the group crafted a “road Downtown Partnership’s Project shift” concept and worked with Pop-Up took street space for lunch- Pittsburgh’s Department of Public time café tables and seating for its Works to redesign Pocusset Street downtown constituents. It is no acci- from a vehicular road into a bicycle/ dent that this happened under the pedestrian way that could be main- watch of Pittsburgh Downtown tained by the city. Partnership executive director Jeremy The bicycle advocacy communi- Waldrup. Waldrup joined the ty’s wins were simply one facet of the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership in city’s developing sustainable trans- 2011 after working for New York City’s portation agenda. A multitude of Department of Small Business other organizations started to focus Services, which piloted pop-up The bicycle advocacy on public spaces, placemaking (a programs for business improvement community’s wins people-centered approach to creating districts struggling to find ground- public places), and street-reclamation floor tenants. were simply one projects, especially around 2008, Pittsburgh’s civic organizations, facet of the city’s when Pittsburgh most intensely felt having now demonstrated several the national recession. Their work tangible benefits of changing the developing sustain- reoriented perceptions about the city’s transportation system, provided able transportation city’s transportation system, not some additional muscle in the 2012 necessarily entirely away from the battle to find sustainable funding agenda. all-encompassing transit funding from the state for the region’s trou- crisis, but toward the idea that bled public transportation program. streets could be designed for people These organizations joined the estab- and that such treatments did not lished coalition consisting of the have to be expensive. Allegheny Conference on Community Reformers also built on existing Development and grassroots activist assets in the city. As it did for cycling, organizations such as Pittsburghers the underlying fundamentals of the for Public Transit. The efforts of advo- city’s geography worked in the cacy groups in the Pittsburgh area street reclaimers’ favor. Pittsburgh represented the only real, structured is geographically compact, with transit-advocacy effort in the state, numerous neighborhoods that are but the overall coalition reflected each a capsule of livability with side- Pittsburgh’s historical pattern: it was walks, local stores, and schools. It a part of the larger Keystone has a very high percentage of pedes- Transportation Funding Coalition and trian commuters, at 11.4 percent in largely industry-driven (Masciotra 2013. Every neighborhood has some 2013). kind of neighborhood association, Nonetheless, the accomplish- and though they may not have ment of securing long-term contact with adjacent neighborhoods, transportation funding for the region there is strong pride of place and will undoubtedly alleviate long- local identity. standing concerns that have stood in With these assets, it is not the way of innovation. In 2015, we are surprising that numerous organiza- seeing only the start of a challenge to tions, from the small, Garfield the centralized and top-down method neighborhood–focused cityLAB to the of urban change that has dominated Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership, Pittsburgh for decades. Recent polit- found success in their micro-local ical developments in the city, county, experiments. CityLAB sponsored the and state governments, as well as Garfield Night Market, a street within the public transit agency, have closure where local vendors created created more alignment in progres- an evening shopping event, and the sive transportation than ever before.

45 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Fresh Perspectives and An unlikely partner threw the Regional Alignment first lifeline to revive the region’s transportation system. Faced with Disparate and uncoordinated declining funds and local DOTs clam- leadership efforts have historically oring for more road capacity, Allen weakened Pittsburgh’s progress Biehler, secretary of the Pennsylvania toward widespread transportation Department of Transportation reform. The city serves as the county from 2003 to 2011, updated the seat for Allegheny County, a county Transportation Improvement that includes 130 different municipal- Program (TIP) to require better ities, yet the urbanized area around involvement from local governments Pittsburgh includes more than one and communities in transporta- county. Thus, priorities often clash. tion planning. The resulting Smart Efforts to annex and consolidate Transportation Program contex- cities and municipalities over the tualizes road designs with land use years, due in large part to the demand in addition to offering guidance for for greater regionalism from the increasing the coordination and business and civic communities, were involvement of partners at all levels: unsuccessful. Allegheny County took metropolitan planning organizations steps toward regionalism when it (MPOs), elected officials, counties, restructured and adopted a home- municipalities, legislators, the Federal rule charter in 2000, placing the Highway Administration, and the county under the leadership of an Department of Transportation. It elected at-large county executive. also resulted in a design guidebook While this model may have helped for engineers, developed in partner- suburban residents feel more included ship with the New Jersey Department in the decision-making processes of of Transportation. This type of the county, for the most part it did collaboration was highly unusual little to help coordination between among state DOTs and demon- the City of Pittsburgh and the county. strated Biehler’s commitment to The area within county boundaries regional planning and integrating remains the focal point of mass land-use and transportation prac- transit under the management of the tices. He and NJ DOT Commissioner Port Authority of Allegheny County Jack Lettiere knew that some of (PAT). These conflicting governance their most congested regions structures dilute the seat of power crossed jurisdictional boundaries and and, thus, control over transportation. that no amount of additional road Fragmented local governance building could ameliorate their trans- additionally made it difficult to portation problems. overcome state regulations that, at Guidance alone has little effect times, negatively affected transit on localities unless there are local operations in the county. As the champions, but Biehler added some county experienced depopulation strength to the program by creating and a reduction in its tax base, a 1997 a competitive funding program, deregulation of utilities statewide the Pennsylvania Community whittled away real-estate taxes Transportation Initiative, to incen- paid by utilities, a tax that made up tivize coordination between regional the majority of dedicated funding authorities. The selection committee for transit improvements. The Port awarded MPOs funding for transpor- Authority was forced to respond tation projects that were land-use by raising fares, but the agency’s efficient and could demonstrate purse continued to come up short interagency participation, and the throughout the 2000s. program ultimately generated more pedestrian, cycling, and multimodal

46 transportation projects than a typical politically savvy and knew how to TIP in the state’s history (State Smart appeal directly to state legislators. Transportation Initiative 2011). In the Fitzgerald did not limit his Pittsburgh region, the Southwestern involvement to the crisis. With Pennsylvania Commission (SPC) transportation funding secure, he received three separate grants immediately redefined the PAT Board for sidewalk, transit, and highway of Directors’ bylaws so that he could improvements. Nonetheless, in the appoint four new directors and absence of coordinated local lead- acted quickly to remove the general ership, the program only marginally manager, whom he viewed as an affected the transportation land- obstacle to improving the region’s scape in Pittsburgh. transit system. General manager It was another state-level Steve Bland was not incompetent; campaign that cast the first polit- in fact, under his leadership, PAT ical shake-up in sharp relief. As the received the Organization of the Pittsburgh region mobilized yet Year award from Bike Pittsburgh for again to negotiate with the state the addition of bike racks to buses. capital of Harrisburg for transpor- Unsteady negotiations with state tation funding in 2012, this time it legislators and the agency’s refrain had an unlikely advocate in its county about prioritizing a cut of 35 percent executive. Rich Fitzgerald had a in transit service, however, left him vision for the region’s transportation vulnerable to Fitzgerald’s ambitions. system as he entered office in 2010 As Jack Brooks, former chairman

ALLEN BIEHLER, FORMER but quickly grew frustrated with PAT’s of the PAT Board, said after the 5–3 SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, inability to respond to his directives vote to remove Bland, “What did he STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. for more real-time transit informa- do? He didn’t do anything wrong. The ASSOCIATED PRESS. tion, better way-finding, and other problem with Bland is [that] he’s an service improvements. PAT seemed to administrator, not a politician.” To all “resist” even looking into Fitzgerald’s involved, though Bland did nothing instructions, but in truth, after years wrong, it was Fitzgerald who was of navigating budget and service instrumental in getting the deal with cuts, PAT bristled at Fitzgerald’s input the state done. regarding what it considered to be A different form of politics is its day-to-day operations. Though taking root in Pittsburgh as new, PAT receives significant funding from progressive candidates challenge the the county, it has operated as a nomi- longstanding political machine, one nally independent agency since its that mirrors the political turnover inception. that Portland, Oregon, experienced in In 2012, as PAT faced another the early 1970s. It started in 2009 for potential 35 to 40 percent service Pittsburgh, when then-twenty-nine- cut in order to balance its budget year-old Natalia Rudiak ran for a seat and negotiations with the state on City Council to represent what she stalled, Fitzgerald decided that the described as “one of the most socially county executive was not going to sit conservative districts” in the city it out, and he muscled his way into (Meyerson 2014). She won. In 2013, the discussion. He found additional Bill Peduto—a progressive who served county funding to bring to the table for nineteen years on City Council, a and invited the unions to start nego- self-proclaimed urbanist, and an early tiating long before they thought they supporter of Bike Pittsburgh—won would have to enter the discussion. the mayoral election. On the same For the first time, the southwest ballot, a few other seats on City region’s coalition for more trans- Council faced progressive challengers. portation funding had an elected This de facto progressive caucus official join in the fight, one who was happened to come together with the

47 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation help of seasoned political operatives experience a cycling city firsthand. who were fresh off John Kerry’s Fitzgerald’s announcement of the presidential campaign in 2004, eager opening of bike lanes on three to apply their polling savvy and data Pittsburgh bridges (maintained by analytics to a progressive cause. the county) was complemented by (Meyerson 2014) Peduto’s announcement of his plan Not only has a new crop of candi- to add more than five miles of bike dates now replaced incumbents, a lanes in two years. Pittsburgh plans new type of government partnership to launch a bike-sharing program in has formed. Peduto and Fitzgerald 2015. This partnership bodes well for have a close working relationship, a city that had for so many decades developed from organizing the first been disjointed in its governance. City Council/County Council Summit “Having them working hand-in-hand years ago, when both served on their on transportation improvements respective councils. They supported is the only way to be successful,” each other’s campaigns for mayor says Jeremy Waldrup, executive and county executive. And within eigh- director of the Pittsburgh Downtown teen months since Peduto’s election, Partnership. they addressed more transportation Peduto and Fitzgerald know that issues than had been addressed in the these improvements are possible previous five years. Fitzgerald led a only with the active support of the forty-person delegation to Cleveland burgeoning class of civic organiza- to study the BRT HealthLine (a tions. Both are open about reforming trip funded by the Rockefeller political practices, of turning the Foundation). Fitzgerald and Peduto “top-down on its head” and making visited Copenhagen (with Bricker, room for citizen-led approaches. head of Bike Pittsburgh, and funded Peduto noted on a radio interview by PeopleForBikes, a foundation) to that Bike Pittsburgh now has more members than any single Democratic Party organization in the city. (He won without any endorsements from major Democratic Party backers, though he ran on the Democratic ticket.) Because the mayor’s office had developed a reputation for nepotism, he welcomed anyone who wanted to serve on his transition committees and then turned over the appointments to foundations and recruiting firms. He has created the city’s first Bureau of Neighborhood Empowerment, though its impact has yet to be proven.

Champions in the BIKE PITTSBURGH HAS MORE MEMBERS THAN Institutions ANY SINGLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ORGANIZATION IN Though the mayor and county execu- THE CITY. tive are seasoned political operatives with ambitious agendas, they are bringing in new, nonpolitical staff to carry out their transportation agenda. They will be aided by planning

48 director Ray Gastil, who grew up alignment to an otherwise rural state in Seattle, served as Manhattan’s is essential for transit to be taken seri- planning director from 2005 to 2009, ously in the state capital. and was the founding director of the The second is the state DOT Van Alen Institute, an architecture competitive fund that rewards and urbanism civic organization regional coordination in land-use based in New York. The city’s bicycle and transportation planning. With and pedestrian coordinator is Kristen local champions who can now utilize Saunders, who worked with Jan Gehl this tool to its highest potential, Architects in San Francisco. Gehl was Pittsburgh may reap more benefits instrumental in Denmark’s trans- from the Smart Transportation formation from a car and parking Program. The Commonwealth of city to a cycling city starting in the Pennsylvania provides a healthy if mid-1960s. Peduto also installed a rare example of a state government new sustainability director, Grant transportation department pursuing Ervin. And in 2014, Scott Bricker pro-urban policies. from Bike Pittsburgh was appointed Third, the Pittsburgh to the Southwestern Pennsylvania Development Fund established by Commission, the region’s MPO, to former Mayor Tom Murphy in the serve as a Pittsburgh representative. mid-1990s, a revolving loan program Though the practices that that helps seed capital investment in continue to guide the work of most the city, could ease the way for more city and state employees have not yet innovation. This fund already helped changed, there is at least the Smart Pittsburgh launch several revitaliza- Transportation Guidebook at the tion projects before there was the state level, which proposes a more strong alignment in government that progressive framework. exists today. Finally, in early 2015, Pittsburgh announced that it adopted a New Policies Reinforce Gains complete street policy. Our analysis has clearly shown that the mere With a growing, engaged civic adoption of policy is insufficient to community disconnected from big guarantee implementation, but with business interests but still committed the engagement of a growing civic to regional revitalization, a new group, new leadership at the city political partnership free from past transportation department, and strictures, and several new state reform-minded agency staff joining policies already in place, the future the commitment, Pittsburgh has of sustainable urban transportation bettered the odds that it will achieve is bright for Pittsburgh. Because the its ambitions. changes are so new, it is too soon to wonder about durability. Four major pieces of policy—two created years ago—will be critical tools for Pittsburgh’s new leaders. The first new policy is, of course, state-level funding for transit over the next several years. This offers a level of stability and removes the possibility of more service cuts to the transit system, allowing Pittsburgh to advance on other fronts. The importance of the urban interests of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia being in

49 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation From symbolism to implementation

50 Chicago

In less than four years, Chicago has Recent Alignment in catapulted from a city making iter- Civic Priorities ative progress in transportation to one that has captured national Chicago has a robust civic sector attention. Between 2011 and 2013, of both businesses and advocates 4 Chicago added forty-two miles of engaged in transportation, but their protected or buffered bike lanes to priorities were originally different its network, launched the second- from each other. After initial gains largest bike-share system in the by bicycle advocates early in Daley’s nation, established a zero-fatality tenure, business interests gained policy, opened over 600 data sets, greater influence in defining trans- and is poised to invest heavily in portation priorities by the time he left grade-separated bus rapid transit. office. Bicycle advocates, however, For two decades under Mayor Richard never stopped applying pressure. M. Daley, the city made gains in When Daley left office, these advo- some visible aspects of its livability cates seized the opportunity to shape and sustainability agenda such as the agenda of Rahm Emanuel, Daley’s green roofs and selected parks. successor. CHICAGO DOWNTOWN. Yet the Chicago Department of Chicago has a long history of civic STEVE TULK/FLICKR. Transportation (CDOT), an agency organizations interested in urban he established, was not able to development. For more than 100 make innovative leaps forward in years, Chicago’s business community transportation until he left office. has promoted the city not only as Though Mayor Daley made some the crossroads of America, but as a major symbolic changes, he lost global capital. To shape Chicago into momentum when reform efforts had a “Paris on the Prairie” and accom- to confront challenges stemming modate rapid population growth, from internal agency culture and the Commercial Club of Chicago practices, among the most difficult commissioned the Plan of Chicago in challenges there are. Sustainable 1909, better known as the Burnham transportation goals have been on Plan. From the plan came eighty-six the advocacy and agency agenda for successful bond initiatives for new years, but they received a significant boulevards, a new waterfront, and boost by outsider leadership planted world-class museums and parks that at CDOT. Commissioner Gabe Klein set the tone for future plans and implemented a clear vision and was initiatives: grand and ambitious. empowered to take risks by Mayor In 1934, as the Great Depression Rahm Emanuel, the first incoming brought the Burnham Plan to a halt, mayor in twenty-two years. the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) was established as a non-gov- ernmental entity to address the city’s housing needs and carry out the plan’s vision. It grew to become an influential

51 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation civic organization dedicated to plan- extensions to the region’s airports and ning, occupying the role of a regional improved rail freight connections – all liaison that convened and coordi- perceived as economic imperatives nated seven counties around housing more important than transportation and transportation issues. reform. The collapse of Chicago’s As the business community’s industrial base in the late twentieth priorities took center stage during century changed the direction of the early 2000s, bicycle and public Chicago’s carefully drawn plans and transit advocates began to shift created a new need for Chicago’s their approach. With the creation civic organizations. Mayor Harold of a strong public sector metropol- Washington viewed empowering itan planning organization (CMAP) neighborhoods as a way to lift in 2005, the Metropolitan Planning As Chrissy Nichols, Chicago’s economic fortunes, and Council shifted its focus to proposing Metropolitan he helped to start a number of small ambitious ideas for the Chicago community groups that coalesced region. As Chrissy Nichols, MPC’s Planning Council’s around neighborhood transportation Director of Research, describes it, Director of issues. Two of these were the Center “We need to be two steps ahead for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), of government . . . with ideas that Research, describes founded in 1978, and the Chicagoland are realistic and palatable.” The Bicycle Federation, founded in 1985. Chicagoland Bicycle Federation it, “We need to be With the Federation leading has expanded beyond bicycle advo- two steps ahead of on grassroots bicycle advocacy and cacy to include walking and transit, CNT supporting it with knowledge rebranding itself as the Active government . . . with applied to timely issues in order to Transportation Alliance (ATA), and ideas that are real- influence policy, advocates netted began providing consulting services to early wins with Daley. These included CDOT on its bicycle programs. istic and palatable.” the creation of the Mayor’s Bicycle Throughout the 2000s, advo- Advisory Committee (MBAC), cacy organizations continued to lay the Mayor’s Bicycle Ambassadors the groundwork and build broad program, Chicago’s first bike plan support for future transporta- in 1992, and the installation of tion initiatives. One such proposal, thousands of bicycle racks. These MPC’s 100- mile, ten-route bus rapid progressive initiatives solidified transit (BRT) plan was informed the relationship between Daley’s and justified by CNT’s housing and MBAC and advocates, which Luann transportation affordability index Hamilton, a twenty-seven-year and was championed by the ATA. In veteran of CDOT, described as “close 2008, the plan gained widespread and collaborative,” and bought Daley support from the Chicago Transit support from bicycle advocates for Authority, the Chicago Department the rest of his tenure. of Transportation, and the U.S. Meanwhile, in response to the Department of Transportation but effects of deindustrialization that lacked the necessary support from had started in the 1970s, the business the Daley administration to imple- community had a growing ambition ment it. to make Chicago globally competitive, When Daley announced his inten- but its focus was on large trans- tion not to campaign for another portation investments. In 1999, the term in 2011, advocates seized the Commercial Club created Metropolis opportunity to shape the incoming 2020, a consulting, research, and administration’s transportation advocacy organization that lobbied agenda. Before the election, the MPC, successfully for the expansion of ATA, CNT, and six other environmental O’Hare International Airport and and transportation organizations won Mayor Daley’s support for a jointly developed the Sustainable downtown circulator, elevated train Transportation Platform, building

52 elevated lines. He concentrated on creating better connections between the region’s airports and improving circulation in the Loop, goals closely aligned with the business communi- ty’s priorities and directly supporting his efforts to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago as well as his 2005 Climate Action Plan. The mayor and the department were initially progressive on bicycling, yet his leadership on the issue waned. He created the Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Mayor’s Bike Ambassadors program, and launched Chicago’s first bike plan three years into his tenure. Daley reorganized the public works depart- ment in 1991 and created the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) to manage the city’s streets. During his first two terms, his admin- istration and CDOT were aggressive IT TOOK FOURTEEN YEARS TO on years of advocacy with various DRAFT A SUCCESSOR TO THE communities in the region. Ron Burke, at obtaining newly created federal 1992 BIKE PLAN. STEVE VANCE/ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality FLICKR. the ATA’s executive director, said the platform told the future mayor and Improvement (CMAQ) Program the city, “This is what you should shoot funding for bike parking, painted over for, now go do it.” In response, Mayor- 100 miles of lanes, and advocated elect Emanuel placed many reformers for the Bloomingdale trail. This work on his transportation transition team bought him goodwill with bicycle and adopted the bicycle, BRT, and advocates that lasted his entire transit-oriented development recom- administration, somewhat paradox- mendations for his Transition 2011 ically despite what seemed to be the plan, which ultimately informed the Mayor’s waning interest in actual official Chicago Fast Forward plan. implementation. In Daley’s second decade in City Hall, after gaining the support of the biking community, his adminis- New Leadership tration seemed to rest on its laurels Relinquishes Old Ways and bike infrastructure and policy fell Daley viewed Chicago as a global city, as a priority. The Bloomingdale trail and he prioritized transportation proposed by CDOT in 1997 was never initiatives designed to raise the city’s realized, and CDOT’s budget for bike global profile or ones that were polit- infrastructure remained minimal ically expedient, as demonstrated by under his administration. It took four- his administration’s lack of resolve on teen years to draft a successor to the many of his ambitious proposals. 1992 bike plan. And after requesting As mayor, his leadership on proposals in 2007 for what would’ve transit was focused on a few large have been the nation’s first bike-share projects, which is not surprising for program, his administration never a city with an aging rail system. In followed through with the idea, even office when the system hit its lowest as programs launched in other cities ridership in 1992, Daley focused such as Minneapolis and Washington, on the rehabilitation of Chicago’s D.C.

53 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation As ethics scandals roiled the Klein was given the task of later years of the Daley administra- getting the Chicago 2011 Transition tion, the mayor moved his CDOT Plan off the ground and, in compar- commissioners to other agencies, ison to past commissioners, was leaving the department without given a long leash. Emanuel was a consistent leader. From 2005 to outcomes-focused and wanted 2011, there were five different CDOT quick wins to add to his record. To commissioners. Miguel d’Escoto, a achieve these wins, agency staff close Daley aide and commissioner were encouraged to take risks and from 2001 to 2005, was forced to utilize pilot projects to implement resign over a federal investigation changes quickly. into his department. D’Escoto was Similar to his predecessors, followed by a series of interim and Klein didn’t serve long, staying only deputy commissioners who appeared two years. Yet in contrast to past uninterested in transportation and commissioners, Klein’s tenure was lacked the management skills to planned to be brief from the begin- operate an agency. ning. Empowered by the mayor and More recently, it appears that supported by an engaged civic sector Mayor Rahm Emanuel shares Daley’s prepared for this policy window, vision of Chicago as a global city Chicago’s innovation was rapid competing for global talent, but unlike and impressive. Daley, has committed to following through with a more holistic and detailed rethinking of the city’s street- Institutional Change CHICAGO MAYOR scape as key to achieving that goal. RAHM EMMANUEL’S Since its creation in 1991 by Daley, TRANSITION TEAM INCLUDED Emanuel expressed his belief that SEVERAL PROGRESSIVE these improvements could attract CDOT was an agency that rarely TRANSPORTATION ADVOCATES. global talent, stating “I expect not had the leadership or guidance to CORBIS. only to take all of their [Seattle and pursue change on the street. Plagued Portland’s] bikers but I also want all by corruption and other political the jobs that come with this, all the scandals and without a leader to economic growth that comes with articulate a vision and empower the this, all the opportunities of the future staff, what little reform the agency that come with this.” could accomplish happened in a Emanuel’s inclusion of many piecemeal manner. progressive advocates on his tran- As Rob Sadowsky, the executive sition team, his adoption of many director of the ATA from 2004 to elements of their 2011 platform, 2010, said to the Chicago Sun-Times and his choice for transportation in 2010, “Things have been happening commissioner empowered the advo- in other cities, like Minneapolis and REBEKAH SCHEINFELD WAS cacy community. During his time as New York, that really made strides NAMED TO SUCCEED GABE chief of staff in the Obama admin- we’re not even coming close to. Part KLEIN AS HEAD OF THE CDOT. of that is a strong presence from CDOT/FLICKR. istration, Emanuel met Gabe Klein, the Washington, D.C., Department the Department of Transportation’s of Transportation commissioner commissioner level and strong and former CEO of Zipcar who had backing from the mayor. We’re kind of demonstrated a passion for reform lacking that in the city right now.” and sustainable transportation. After In a city with a rich history of his election, at the recommendation ambitious plans, CDOT was notice- of reform advocates, Mayor Emanuel ably lacking one. In its twenty years brought Klein onto his transition of existence under Daley, CDOT had staff to aid the development of the never drafted or implemented a Chicago 2011 Transition Plan. Soon comprehensive plan. Even CDOT’s after, Klein was named to lead CDOT. vision statement, drafted at its

54 creation, was not made public until Durability 2011. Although it had a bike plan, a The durability of these innovations is complete-streets policy, and street not secured, but the hiring of Rebekah design guidelines, it lacked a unifying Scheinfeld to succeed Gabe Klein is document. Furthermore, without a a strong start. The appointment of strong DOT commissioner who was Scheinfeld, the planner behind the given a mandate to pursue reform, Ashland Avenue BRT project at CDOT agency staff would have little reason and the Chicago Transit Authority, to risk doing things differently. signals Emanuel’s commitment to The election of Emanuel and the that project. Although some key installation of Gabe Klein empowered staffers have left—deputy commis- reformers within the department. sioner Scott Kubly was chosen to head Klein’s appointment was short by Seattle’s DOT—many other long- Advocates, staff, design, and he was charged with term staffers like Luann Hamilton, getting many projects off the ground. and leadership the deputy commissioner of project First, Klein quickly created a clear, development, have stayed. coalescing under comprehensive plan unifying the Under Klein, CDOT committed department’s work that served as a mayoral mandate to publicly releasing annual updates a mandate for the department. of the Chicago Fast Forward plan led to rapid Klein described the 2011 Chicago to measure how the department is Fast Forward plan as “. . . a plan for meeting its goals. The first update innovation at [CDOT]. This is more of an internal in 2013 showed the department far document, but we want to make it CDOT and in exceeding some and falling short on public, so people know what we’re others. Klein reflected on the influ- Chicago. working on.” It created a new mission ence of Chicago Fast Forward, saying, statement for CDOT and committed “Publish a plan, even if people don’t the agency to the goals set out in the read it, because it instills confidence Chicago 2011 Transition Plan, many of in people that it’s been thought about which came from the ATA’s transpor- and it shows transparency.” Long- tation platform. These benchmarks time CDOT director Luann Hamilton included 100 miles of protected bike attributes recent success in Chicago lanes, the Divvy bike-share system, to having the “right resources at the and bus rapid transit. right time.” Advocates, staff, and Part of this success came from leadership coalescing under a mayoral framing these actions in terms of mandate led to rapid innovation at safety. Chicago enacted a zero-pe- CDOT and in Chicago. destrian-fatality plan (three years In 2015, Emanuel faced his first before New York City Mayor de Blasio reelection campaign and narrowly embraced Vision Zero) and called for won. While his polling numbers were the department to act with urgency. low and he faced a competitive elec- Although reform-minded CDOT tion, transportation has not become staff had struggled without strong a polarizing issue of the campaign, leadership, many were prepared a testament to the popularity of when Gabe Klein took office. Under the programs. In fact he made a the previous commissioner, the fully point of campaigning at El stations. funded Stony Island protected bike With his win, Chicago’s civic advo- lane was scheduled to be completed cates and reformists have another in three years. After Klein’s appoint- few years to ensure that the Mayor ment, staff opened the similar Kinzie and CDOT build on the momentum Street protected bike lane within already underway. This time, with new weeks. This new leadership quickly leadership at CDOT, the chances of made an impact by empowering the overcoming the challenges of internal staff and signaling that there was a practices are even greater. new CDOT in charge.

55 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Big capital commitment to transit and road mega-projects is followed by finer-grained street redesign.

56 Denver

Over the last fifteen years, down- of that single ballot measure, the town Denver and the region as a city of Denver only more recently whole have seen dramatic changes in turned toward active transportation transportation behavior and land use. on city streets, this time advanced The first phase of change occurred by a different coalition of Denver 5 in the 1980s and 90s, when the civic leaders, elected champions, Denver region faced growth-man- and agency staff than the coalition agement and congestion challenges. that had championed the transit Regional mayors and businesses and road mega-projects. Spurred on banded together to build a new by the success of a temporary bike- culture of collaborative problem share system opened for the 2008 solving, creating new institutions Democratic National Convention, like a Metro Mayors Caucus and a Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper regional economic development and many civic leaders worked to corporation to address those prob- establish a citywide bike-share lems. Significantly, in the 1990s and program. The city followed through early 2000s, they forged consensus by making important staff hires that that regional transit—and land advanced safer biking infrastructure, DENVER BUS. use that supported transit—was while grassroots advocates gained IAN FREIMUTH/FLICKR. essential to Greater Denver and enough strength to keep active succeeded in multiple campaigns to transportation on the city’s agenda raise funding for transit. Unlike our even after a change in the mayoral examples from New York, Portland, administration. Today more than half Chicago, Pittsburgh, and elsewhere, of downtown Denver employees get transportation reformers in Denver to work via transit, biking, or walk- had to reach an accommodation ing—a remarkable change for a place with road interests in order to attract that two decades ago was a quint- widespread regional support for a essential western U.S. auto-oriented multimodal transportation package conurbation. that included a significant expansion of highways. This singular infusion of significant capital from one big FasTracks: Regional ballot measure on one election day is also of a different character than Business and Politicians the more incremental approaches Come Together we saw elsewhere. Also in contrast to Denver is known for having one of the those other case studies, the Denver most collaborative regional politics example involved the engagement of in the country. But it wasn’t always suburban officials, not only those of that way. As Bruce Katz and Jennifer the core city. Bradley write in Metropolitan With transit and land-use Revolution, city-suburb relations improvements underway as a result

57 reached a low point during the region’s growth and that increases “annexation battles” of the 1960s in revenue to pay for such a network and 70s. At the time, Denver was were justifiable. This added substan- engaged in the active annexation tial weight to what had been an of unincorporated territory at its often quixotic effort by the Denver borders in order to grow its commer- Regional Transportation District cial tax base and add white families (RTD) to build fixed-route transit. to its school system. Many suburban RTD had been advocating for a residents resisted, first by incorpo- regional transit network since 1970 rating into new jurisdictions, and but had managed to scrape together then by proposing and passing the funding for just one light rail line, so-called Poundstone Amendment, a which opened in 1994. state constitutional amendment that The Metro Mayors Caucus took The Denver example severely limited Denver’s ability to up this cause as well. Its first effort involved the engage- annex land. The overall effect of this was to back RTD’s 1997 Guide the Ride era was pronounced fragmentation in initiative, which would have raised ment of suburban the region. a regional sales tax by 0.4 percent officials, not only those But starting in the 1980s, when to pay for transit expansion. The the region’s economy was suffering initiative, however, failed at the polls. of the core city. from the effects of an energy bust Many observers blamed fundamental and a nationwide recession, Denver- tactical errors or lack of confidence area business leaders and politicians in existing institutions; it was unclear began a concerted effort to knit what RTD would spend the new the region back together. In contrast money on or why it chose the invest- to established forms of regionalism ment corridors it did. Another factor in Minneapolis-St Paul and Portland was a strong distrust of the agency, in which were constituted entirely large part because its elected board by government, regionalism Denver- of directors comprised a dysfunc- style originated in the private sector. tional mix of “cranks, transit activists Business leaders created a new and semi-retired politicians,” in the institution, the Greater Denver words of a local journalist. Not helping Corporation (later renamed the matters, RTD’s board chair, Jon Metro Denver Economic Development Caldara, was an outspoken opponent Corporation) and set explicit goals of rail and campaigned against the of stopping conflicts between local Guide the Ride initiative. economic development offices and In response to public distrust positioning the region to compete of RTD, mayors and businesses globally. Complementing the business supported a new civic organization elite’s efforts, Greater Denver– called the Transit Alliance, which area politicians created another advocated for new transit and institution, a Metro Mayors Caucus, in bolstered public support by culti- 1993. The caucus, which has grown to vating civic leaders supportive of include forty members, has no formal transit expansion, several of whom power but is an influential political went on to win election to the RTD force because it is not only a forum board over anti-rail incumbents. for discussion but regularly takes The combination of mayoral, positions on issues. The caucus makes business, and Transit Alliance support all decisions by consensus, allowing turned the tide for rail in Denver. the region to speak with one voice on Voters approved new bonds for the critical state issues. Southeast Rail Line in 1999 and in Both the Metro Mayors Caucus 2004 passed a regional sales tax and business leaders came to a increase for FasTracks, a program consensus early on that an expanded of seven rail lines and an overhaul transit network was key to the of Denver Union Station to be

58 DENVER UNION STATION. completed by 2017. FasTracks was program could not be completed GETTY IMAGES. approved by voters despite opposition on time without additional revenue. from Governor Bill Owens and state Two years of bad headlines followed, Republicans, who had called for what but regional support for transit did they considered a “more balanced” not wane. The Metro Mayors Caucus approach that combined highway rejected an RTD proposal to shorten Denver is known widening with fewer new transit lines. planned lines in order to save money Mayors were willing to pair and instead announced it would for having one of transit expansion with road spending support new efforts to raise revenue if doing so seemed necessary to win for transit. (Subsequent polls have the most over voters, especially in the more shown lukewarm public support collaborative road-oriented suburbs. In 1999, the for a new regional tax despite high Metro Mayors Caucus and the Transit approval of FasTracks. The caucus regional politics Alliance campaigned not only for the has delayed mounting a campaign in the country. light rail measure, but also for a ballot and instead supported the measures measure that widened a parallel described above.) highway. In 2009, they supported a The region’s mayors have also state law that raised car fees to fund been steadfast in their support for bridge repair, local roads, and transit. transit-supportive land use, which As of 2015, the caucus is backing a is consistent with Denver’s culture. proposal for a statewide tax dedi- Growth management and pres- cated to both roads and transit, ervation of open space have been known as MPACT64. priorities of governors and citizens This regional consensus for since the 1960s. But the general desire transit has held together even during has yielded limited results. While difficult times. In 2008, it became there is a cultural appetite for smart clear that FasTracks was running into growth, Coloradans have a libertarian problems: the sales tax was bringing streak that tends to prioritize a small in less than forecasted, projects government role, especially regarding were hitting cost overruns, and the so-called property rights. The result

59 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation has been voluntary regional agree- services via public transit and provides ments, such as a nonbinding growth financing instruments for TOD. boundary established by Denver-area municipalities. State laws enable, but do not require, localities to plan Civic Urbanism Grows in and manage growth. Suburbs in the Denver region also began experi- Downtown Denver menting with New Urbanism in the Colorado has long been known as a 1990s, relatively early in the move- hotbed for biking, hiking, and other ment’s history. outdoor pursuits, and the Denver In the years prior to the passage region was already well known for of FasTracks, Denver made a signif- an extensive trail network. But this icant decision to adopt new zoning interest in biking as recreation did not to allow higher-density, mixed-use translate into biking and walking as development around transit stations. everyday transportation. Denver’s FasTracks was always described as most successful bike advocacy group, both a transit and land-use program, BikeDenver, was created in 2001 but and this has been backed up by policy. struggled to make headway despite In 2006, the city developed an overall an ambitious city bicycle plan. The transit-oriented development (TOD) city had a Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory strategic plan and began devel- Committee, but former committee oping several station-area plans. chair John Hayden says that when RTD began publishing annual TOD he first started attending meet- Status Reports in 2005. The region’s ings, “there was little interest from metropolitan planning organiza- anyone other than hard-core bicycle tion, the Denver Regional Council of advocates” and the meetings “had Governments, maintains a database a distinctly fatalistic view of bicy- of TOD developments. cling in Denver.” In 2005, the League In 2010, the city finished a of American Bicyclists, which had complete overhaul of its zoning code, named Denver a Silver Bike-Friendly replacing a 1950s standard with a Community, downgraded the city’s form-based code that has made rating to bronze, citing Denver’s mixed-use development “simpler, less failure to fulfill promises made in the contentious, and cheaper,” according 2001 bicycle plan. to the Denver Business Journal. These From there, Denver made signif- policies have had a clear effect: popu- icant strides to improve biking and lation density in Denver grew from walking, spurred on by advocates 3,050 people per square mile in 1990 and champions within government. to 3,922 in 2010. Business organizations again played In recent years, transit advo- an early role, recognizing that the cacy has moved beyond a simple regional transit build-out approved pro-transit message and now encom- in 2004 could be transformational. passes broader issues of community In 2005, the Downtown Denver leadership, environmental justice, Partnership convinced the city to and equity. The Transit Alliance, which cooperate to develop a Downtown was originally created to support Area Plan. The plan, released in the FasTracks plan, has taken on a 2007, served as a full-throated call new role of educating community for urbanism. “The development leaders about transit. In 2010, local of both FasTracks and a comple- and national foundations created mentary local transit system will Mile High Connects, a partnership make transit-based living possible in of public, private, and nonprofit Downtown,” the plan says. It called organizations that works to increase for downtown Denver to build around access to housing, jobs, schools, and Union Station and Civic Center

60 Station, the creation of a free-fare Biking and walking became a zone downtown, expanded bus higher priority in city departments as connections to adjacent neighbor- well. The public works department hoods, designation of the downtown hired a senior city planner dedicated area as a “pedestrian priority zone,” solely to bicycle and pedestrian proj- conversion of one-way streets to ects, Emily Snyder. Both advocates two-way, and accommodation of and the media have called her a bicycles on all downtown streets. “driving force” for biking in the city. Denver was then selected to “She brought passion and an ability to host the 2008 Democratic National create new relationships” both with Convention, creating an opportu- external advocates and other city nity to put these recommendations staffers, said Aylene McCallum of the into practice. In the run-up to the Downtown Denver Partnership. convention, Hickenlooper challenged Grassroots and business advo- advocates and civic leaders to make cates were also becoming more the DNC the greenest convention in powerful. After the convention, Piep history. One of the resulting initia- van Heuven was hired as BikeDenver’s tives was a temporary bike-sharing first professional executive director. program, Freewheelin, created In 2009, the Partnership organized by the health insurance company a fact-finding trip to New York City for Humana and the bicycle-focused advocates and city staffers, including philanthropy Bikes Belong (now called Emily Snyder and traffic engineer PeopleForBikes). Justin Schmitz. After returning from Freewheelin was used over 5,500 that trip, Denver staff designed 2008 CONVENTIONEERS times during the four-day convention, the city’s first buffered bike lane on MAKE USE OF becoming an eye-opener for many. Champa Street, which opened in FREEWHEELIN BIKE SHARE PROGRAM. GETTY IMAGES. According to Piep van Heuven, who 2010. at the time was a Bikes Belong B-Cycle launched in 2010 with volunteer manager, “the project was 500 bikes, making it the largest so visible” and changed bike sharing municipal bike-sharing program in from a “wacky idea” into a success the country at the time. Later that Active transportation story that “stamped Denver as a bike- year, Hickenlooper was elected has stayed on the city’s friendly place.” governor of Colorado. Michael Advocates described Free- Hancock, a Denver City Council agenda in part because wheelin as an eye-opener for Mayor member, succeeded him as mayor. grassroots advocates Hickenlooper as well. Before the Under Hancock, the public works system opened, he told advocates department has built on the progress have continued to that Denver should aim for 10 made under Hickenlooper, proposing grow in strength. percent of commuting trips to be by and building bolder street designs. bike by 2018. After the convention, Transit and bicycle advocates Hickenlooper told his staff he wanted say that the sense of urgency present Denver to be the first U.S. munic- during the Hickenlooper administra- ipality with a citywide bike-share tion was not initially present under system and enlisted his sustainability Hancock. In response, they cultivated office to advance the project. The members of the city council. “We Convention Host Committee asked ourselves: How do we fund a donated one million dollars toward bike project in every council district? a permanent bike-share system. The city council’s now asking the Parry Burnap, who had led the questions [BikeDenver] used to ask” in convention’s Greening Initiative, was budget hearings and public meetings, hired to lead Denver Bike Sharing, van Heuven said. a nonprofit created to roll out and Active transportation has stayed manage that system. on the city’s agenda in part because grassroots advocates have continued

61 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation to grow in strength. BikeDenver now counterproductive for the region. has over 500 dues-paying members, Furthermore, the city of Denver has compared to fewer than 100 in 2008. not yet experienced a “bikelash” of The city now has a pedestrian advo- media and public criticism of sustain- cacy group, WalkDenver, which was able-streets infrastructure. As the city founded in 2011 and convinced the adds to its one protected bike lane city to create a Mayor’s Pedestrian and does more to reconfigure street Advisory Committee in 2014. The space, public backlash could surpass region also boasts popular livable anything officials have dealt with streets and urbanism blogs like so far. That would be an important DenverUrbanism and DenverInfill. political test for both civic and elected In 2011, the city adopted the leaders. Denver Moves strategic plan, which That said, Denver leaders have set even more ambitious goals than already overcome several potential the 2008 plan, including reaching a hurdles that could have knocked the bicycle commute share of 15 percent region off its path toward transpor- and putting every household within a tation sustainability. Both urban and quarter-mile of a “high ease-of-use” suburban mayors have been stead- route. It called for striped bike lanes fast in their support of the FasTracks on more than a dozen downtown vision for regional transit, even when streets. A 2014 plan update (which the program faced a crisis in 2009. has not yet been adopted) would Mayoral support for sustainable replace nearly all of them with streets in Denver has also survived physically protected lanes. Planners the change in administration from have also proposed cycle tracks and Hickenlooper to Hancock. The public bus-only lanes in neighborhoods works staff remains empowered, outside downtown. incorporating ambitious biking infra- Change is happening on the structure into neighborhood plans street, too. The city opened its first and embracing more dramatic mode- protected bike lane in May 2014, on share targets. DENVER LIGHT RAIL. 15th Street. Pressure from BikeDenver The rollout of new projects CORBIS. and other advocates helped convince and policies, combined with a the public works department to strengthening civic sector, will help make the lane physically separated, keep Denver on the path. Four new after the initial design called for a rail lines are scheduled to open in buffered lane. Mayor Hancock took 2016, connecting large swathes of the inaugural ride down the lane and the region to downtown Denver celebrated the lane—as well as public via transit. The Denver rezoning transit, transit-oriented develop- and regional TOD policy will make ment, and the bike-share program—in it easier for walkable and tran- his 2014 State of the City address. sit-friendly development to continue throughout the region. Denver’s biking and walking advocates have Durability professionalized and grown in their influence, and business interests have Denver is still an emerging region embraced urbanism. Transit advocacy when it comes to transit and is growing to include issues of afford- people-oriented streets. For one, able housing near rail stations, social local mayors have often proved equity, and community engagement. willing to accept or even demand The accomplishments of Denver’s new road spending as a necessary past transportation leaders—and the political trade for transit revenue. continued commitment of its current To the extent that this money goes ones—have positioned the region well to widen highways, it could be for future transportation innovation.

62 63 Denver Major rail projects completed but potential impact muted by lack of systemic reform.

64 Charlotte

Like many of our other case studies, Business-Based Civic Charlotte’s interest in urban devel- Leadership opment stems from the pursuit of economic growth by both govern- Similar to the situation in many ment and business interests and their other cities across the United States, 6 desire to transform the city from a Charlotte’s civic environment has crossroads for rural trade into a global been historically dominated by financial marketplace. In its pursuit corporations. In this case banks of sustainable transportation, the were the primary drivers of the city’s city itself seems to be at a crossroads economy. Over the last thirty years, when we analyze it through our these global corporate entities theory of change. wanted to attract global labor and Charlotte stands out because thus “needed to feel that they were its highly visible rail projects have not in a headquarters city.” They have been matched with systemic reforms tended to support big infrastructure to the streetscape. The attention it projects, though in Charlotte, they garnered for its municipal leader- did place quality-of-life issues and ship and initiatives to improve public public transportation high on their CHARLOTTE DOWNTOWN. transportation and infrastructure is list of city must-haves (Smith and ALEX G/FLICKR. well-deserved, but stands in contrast Graves 2005). to most of the local stakeholder Unlike other case study cities, the interviews that describe a human- business elite did not initially form scale transportation movement still an independent organization that emerging. Although it has invested conducted urban planning studies in multiple transportation modes, on behalf of their interests. For comprehensive reform has yet to decades, there was no Regional Plan surface. This may be a result of the Association or Metropolitan Planning relative newness of Charlotte’s civic Council or Allegheny Conference on advocates, many of whom are in Community Development as there is stark contrast to Charlotte’s longest- in New York or Chicago or Pittsburgh; standing advocates, its corporations. the business elite in Charlotte simply It is still too early to tell how much met individually or through the influence the fledgling civic groups Chamber of Commerce. A non-gov- "will have over the corporate giants. ernmental, non-private, regionally As one of the ten fastest-growing oriented civic organization still does regions in the country in terms of not exist in Charlotte, leaving a population and per capita income vacuum of civic leadership that is in the last twenty years, Charlotte’s balanced, regional and mode agnostic success feeds its ambitions while it in outlook. Perhaps worse, the strong simultaneously attracts a new class role of corporations limits opportu- of professionals that could fuel a nities for community-based groups wholly different form of advocacy and to lodge any input about neighbor- civic engagement. hood-level desires.

65 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation The corporations’ historic prefer- The lack of civic organizations ence for large infrastructure solutions to broadcast the public support for narrowed the scope of the urban sustainable transportation may have development agenda. Center City hindered the execution of big plans. Partners (CCP), largely launched by Though there is corporate support Bank of America in the late 1990s, for the light rail lines, corporations did is the public-private business part- not give similar weight to bike lane nership for the central business additions that would complement district of Charlotte. Its agenda the light rail network. In the past, tended historically to focus more on organizations that were focused on the building footprints of its largest small-scale aspects of transporta- members—their key assets—and on tion found it difficult to survive. The large infrastructure projects and Charlotte Area Bicycle Coalition, a CHARLOTTE CENTER CITY PARTNERS PRESIDENT historically paid less notice to other result of renewed interest in bicycling MICHAEL SMITH (LEFT), fine-grained issues, such as walk- in the 1990s, is nearly defunct. Even WITH CHARLOTTE MAYOR ability, street design, and parking in its heyday, it maintained a relatively ANTHONY FOXX, FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, management. narrow focus on bicycle safety CHAIRMAN, CEO OF CISCO Charlotte’s most successful coali- education and did not venture into JOHN CHAMBERS, AND tions were public-private partnerships advocacy for new street designs. The CEO OF DUKE ENERGY JIM ROGERS. CHARLOTTE to fund infrastructure. A multi- regional transportation system is WON AN AWARD FOR ITS modal hub planned for the Center fragmented as a result. The bicycle PUBLIC/PRIVATE ENERGY City neighborhood was initiated at network continues to lack crucial EFFICIENCY PROGRAM. ASSOCIATED PRESS. the behest of Bank of America and links between destinations and along matched by state and federal funds. popular corridors. The light rail Lynx project was the In fact, some scholars speculate result of a feasibility study funded by that because business ambitions corporations. Streetcar and light rail loom so large and strong in Charlotte projects were initiated by businesses. there appears to be “no sustained When there was an elected official need for citizens in general to actively who shared the vision of the corpo- engage civic leaders on most issues” rations, the project moved forward. (Bacot 2008). It’s not that Charlotte’s Even without a The existing light rail projects were leaders do not innovate—civic and strong civic organi- the result of the corporations working government leaders in Charlotte with former mayors Pat McCrory often apply private-sector manage- zation advocating (now Governor of North Carolina) and ment tools, such as doing away with for public transit, the Anthony Foxx (now U.S. Secretary of sector-focus agencies like “housing Transportation) and with all parties services” in favor of goals such as public consistently viewing transit projects as a boon to “improving shelter” with performance supports sustainable their city’s image, making Charlotte benchmarks, and they often launch more “like a headquarter city.” (Smith new programs focused on urban transportation. and Graves 2005) renewal. Rather, citizens tend to Preferences are now shifting. withdraw from proactively offering More recently CCP has become more input and seem to be “confident that engaged in making Uptown and the decision makers are serving their South End more pedestrian-friendly, interests” (Bacot 2008). But if neigh- promoting placemaking (a people-fo- borhood-level pedestrian and bicycle cused approach to creating public improvements are not on the agenda spaces) on the Rail Trail alongside of the region’s corporations, concerns the Lynx Blue Line light rail and about walking and biking will fall to supporting a bike-share program. Its the side, especially if there are few 2020 Vision Plan includes a section other forums to highlight topics of on sustainable transportation, a new local interest to neighborhoods. goal compared to past plans.

66 (Parsons Brinckerhoff, McDonald Transit Associates, Siemens) funded the campaign to keep the transit tax. This does not mean that the public did not also support the plan. A 2012 poll of 800 Mecklenburg County voters conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates found that voters continued to support public transit investment over cars, with 61 percent of those polled more willing to invest in public transportation than in building new roads, which garnered 25 percent of the votes. Second, new voices are emerging and are rapidly gaining strength. Sustain Charlotte and its Transportation Choices Alliance, launched in 2014 after a year of research and interviews, enjoys growing popularity. A number of small civic groups that employ tactical urbanism strategies are building on the sidewalk and complete-streets programs that were started in the late 2000s (discussed in more detail below). The Knight Foundation has funded Center City Partners to work with Gehl Studio to create a public space framework for Uptown. Groups are working on programming for LYNX LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM. There is promise. First, public opinion vacant blocks and temporary street DOUG CLOUSE. swings in the transportation innova- closures. These efforts are starting tion direction. Even without a strong to diversify the perspectives on civic organization advocating for Charlotte’s urban development, and public transit, the public consistently they now include a strong sustainable supports sustainable transporta- transportation angle, though it is too tion. In 1998, Mecklenburg County early to judge the overall impact. voters agreed to a half-cent tax to finance the 2025 Integrated Transit/ Land-Use Plan, which included many of the light rail projects that were Political Leadership constructed as well as zoning for Charlotte has benefited from strong transit-oriented development. Even mayoral and city council leadership in when a small anti-tax campaign support of sustainable transporta- tested the appeal of the transit tion, but its focus tends to emphasize tax in 2007, Mecklenburg residents corporate preferences, which largely voted again to keep the tax, with favor large infrastructure projects. 70 percent voting for it compared The Gateway Station Project, the to 30 percent against. True to form, multimodal hub initiated by Bank of major corporations (Duke Energy, America, stalled when former mayor Wachovia, Bank of America) and Anthony Foxx left Charlotte to join the other firms that would directly federal government (it has since benefit from the transit investment been reinvigorated).

67 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Relative to reform, the city from within the city and agencies government is not opposed to to enact progressive policies or restructure or change but has done local ambitions. so with varying degrees of success. Case in point, North Carolina The motto of the city has been “The issued the first state-level bicycle Business of Charlotte is Business” policy in 1974, when it required the since the 1970s, and many polit- North Carolina Department of ical leaders have recognized that Transportation to recognize the a business-friendly city with global bicycle as a vehicle that had the right aspirations requires transit and to be on the road. North Carolina attention to quality-of-life issues. The issued bicycle design guidance in City Within a City Initiative, created 1993. More recently, the state DOT in 1993 by the city manager to focus created a full department of bicycle on quality-of-life issues and address and pedestrian transportation with neighborhood fragmentation, was its state transportation policy accompanied by a departmental update in 2011. This state department reorganization in which twenty-six is part of the transit/rail/aviation city departments became nine key department, however, rather than the departments and four supporting street planning department, which government-run businesses. limited its understanding of how Even with a community-oriented to effectively aid cities. As a result, department such as the Office of the state DOT’s funding formulas Neighborhood Development, trans- continue to make local bicycle and portation can fall between the cracks. pedestrian project funding very diffi- An effect of this kind of restruc- cult. Without municipal political and turing is that it dilutes how much the civic leadership and broad-based local mayor can hold staff responsible for public support to find ways to direct specific programs. Danny Pleasant, that funding more appropriately, the current head of Charlotte DOT state-level policies could not be trans- is credited as an effective leader for lated into local action. transportation innovation and is Relative instability among the active with the National Association government administration may of City Transportation Organizations. also play a role. Charlotte has a short At the same time, there is potential mayoral term of two years, resulting to add more reform-minded staff in administrative changeover rela- that can find ways around the state tively frequently. The Charlotte Area bias for roads and highways and local Transit System, the city’s transit inertia. The DOT’s transportation authority, was created only in 1999. plans could be further connected The city adopted its first city trans- to the neighborhoods and provide portation plan in 2006 and followed a visionary framing. Furthermore, that with urban street design without the civic sector’s mouthpiece, guidelines in 2007 to change city a reform-minded DOT can only make ordinances in order to encourage limited progress. more human-oriented designs. Many state legislative seats turned to Republicans in the 2014 election and Agency Changes the overall state government has just become very anti-urban, posing In Charlotte, many progressive greater challenges to Charlotte’s transportation policies were put in advocates and political leader- place decades ago, but still lack ship. The Charlotte Department of implementation today. There has Transportation has a strategic plan, been insufficient critical mass but the department has to overcome a long history of car-oriented views

68 CHARLOTTE BIKE LANE. GEHL STUDIO.

The Charlotte Department of Transportation has a strategic plan, but the department has to overcome a long history of car-oriented views.

elsewhere in the community, at the year of its annual budget to build new state DOT level, and at the state sidewalks. Again, the impact is still legislative level. to be determined. The city recently With this fragmented envi- hired a pedestrian/bicycle manager ronment, Charlotte makes spotty to shepherd more walkability projects, progress. It has a complete-streets yet the longstanding city policy of not policy, and its DOT redesigned East requiring sidewalks and maintenance Boulevard into a model complete for most developments means that street, winning the Environmental the dedicated staffer plays catch-up. Protection Agency’s 2009 award for In sum, some critical policy pieces Smart Growth Achievement. The city for transportation innovation are has constructed $88 million worth of in place, but a stronger and more complete streets since the ordinance dynamic civic voice that can represent change. In spite of all the policies in public support for politicians and support of complete streets, walk- boost their courage, a voice that can ability continues to be an issue and match that of corporations, is much according to the 2012 Charlotte needed in Charlotte. With its civic Quality of Life Survey, 76 percent of movement still emerging, Charlotte is the city still commutes by single-oc- still searching for stable footing that cupancy cars. To encourage walking, would propel it to its potential. a sidewalk program created in 1999 was redesigned, relaunched in 2011, and the city devotes $7.5 million per

69 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Bibliography

70 Abbott, Carl. “The Capital of Good Belko, Mark. “Bill Peduto Wants to Burkholder, Rex. Telephone interview by Planning: Metropolitan Oregon Since 1970.” Make Pittsburgh’s Smithfield Street Elizabeth Marcello, July 7, 2014. In The American Planning Tradition: Culture a ‘Grand Boulevard,’” Pittsburgh Post- ———. “Portland’s Bicycle Revolution Started and Policy, Edited by Robert Fishman, 241– Gazette, October 20, 2013. http:// with a Lawsuit.” The 2100 Blog, June 23, 262. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2000. www.post-gazette.com/business/ 2013. http://gettingto2100.org/portlands- businessnews/2013/10/20/Bill- Abbott, Carl and Sam Lowry. “A Brief bicycle-revolution-started-with-a-lawsuit/. Peduto-wants-to-make-Pittsburgh-s- Portrait of Multimodal Transportation Smithfield-Street-a-grand-boulevard/ Burkins, Glenn. “5 Questions for Dianna Planning in Oregon and the Path to stories/201310200231#ixzz2iMMSuwSD. Ward.” Qcitymetro, August 6, 2012. http:// Achieving It, 1890–1974.” Urban Studies www.qcitymetro.com/news/articles/5_ and Planning Faculty Publications and Bernstein, Will. In discussion with Elizabeth questions_for_dianna_ward113153245.cfm. Presentations, Paper 79 (2010). http:// Marcello, June 5, 2014. pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/usp_fac/79. Carman, Diane. “Denver on Two Wheels is Biehler, Allen. In discussion with Elizabeth Abel, Bruce. In discussion with Elizabeth No Picnic.” Denver Post, May 15, 2007. Marcello, June 4, 2014. Marcello, July 11, 2014. Carter, Peter and Jerry Walters. “Livability Biles, Roger, Raymond Mohl, and Mark Active Transportation Alliance. Chicago’s 2.0.” Planning, 79, no.5 (2013): 10-14. Rose. “Revisiting the Urban Interstates: Sustainable Transportation Platform: Politics, Policy, and Culture Since World Center City Partners. Center City 2020 Priorities for the Next Mayor. 2011. War II.” Journal of Urban History 40, no. 5 Vision Plan. July 2011. Adler, Ben. “Wheels of Progress.” The (2014): 827–830. Centralina Council of Governments. Nation, October 17, 2011. Binns, Shannon. In discussion with “FLOW: Freight, Logistics, Opportunities, Allegheny Conference on Community Elizabeth Marcello, June 12, 2014. Telephone Workforce – A Freight Mobility Plan for Development. 2005 Annual Report. 2005. interview by Shin-pei Tsay, December 18, the Greater Charlotte Bi-State Region.” 2014. TIGER Planning Grant Application, 2014. Alliance for Walking and Biking. “Bicycling http://www.centralina.org/wp-content/ and Walking in the United States: 2014 Bland, Steve. Telephone interview by uploads/2011/11/CCOG_TigerGrant_ Benchmarking Report.” 2014. Elizabeth Marcello, July 8, 2014. proposal_narrative-4-28-14_FINAL.pdf. Arrington, G.B., Jr. and Tri-County Blazina, Ed. “Allegheny Voters Change Chesser, John. In discussion with Elizabeth Metropolitan Transportation District of Hierarchy.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Marcello, June 11, 2014. Oregon. “Beyond the Field of Dreams: Light October 13, 2013. Rail and Growth Management in Portland.” Chicago Department of Transportation. Bower, David. In discussion with Elizabeth TriMet Collection, September 1996. Chicago Fast Forward Action Agenda. 2012. Marcello, June 30, 2014. Aulwes, David. Telephone interview by ———. Chicago Fast Forward Action Agenda: Bricker, Scott. Telephone interview by Elizabeth Marcello, July 16, 2014. 2013 Update. 2013. Elizabeth Marcello, June 13, 2014. Bacot, Hunter. “Civic Culture As a Policy City of Charlotte. “Energy & Environmental Boak, Josh. “Chicago Goes Premise: Appraising Charlotte’s Civic Programs.” City of Charlotte & Green.” Scientific American 18, no. 5 (2008). Culture.” Journal of Urban Affairs 30, no. 4 Mecklenberg County website. http:// (2008): 389–417. Boarnet, Marlon G. “National charmeck.org/city/charlotte/nbs/ transportation planning: Lessons from the communityengagement/pages/energy. Badger, Emily. “Why Mayors Should Run the U.S. Interstate Highways,” Transport Policy aspx. Department of Transportation.” CityLab, 31, iss. C (2013): 73–82. November 21, 2012. http://www.citylab. City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County com/commute/2012/11/want-change- Bonner, Ernie. “Insurgents and Government, and University of North federal-transportation-policy-put-mayor- Convergence: A Gathering at the Clinton Carolina. 2012 Quality of Life Study. http:// charge/3954/. Street Theatre June 14, 1994 to Celebrate maps.co.mecklenburg.nc.us/qoldashboard/. 25 Years Since June 14, 1969 and the Early 2012. Barcousky, Len. “Attempt to Delay Port Years of the Goldschmidt Era in Portland, Authority Transit Cuts Fails.” Pittsburgh City and County of Denver, Denver OR, produced by David Bragdon and Post-Gazette, March 27, 2011. Civic Ventures, and Denver Downtown Friends.” Transcribed on December 10, 1994. Partnership. Denver Downtown Area Plan. Baumann, Christiane and Stuart White. Borgsdorf, Del. “Charlotte’s City Within July 2007. “Making Better Choices: A Systemic a City: the Community Problem-Solving Comparison of Adversarial and City of New York, Department of Approach.” National Civic Review 84, no. 3 Collaborative Approaches to the Transport Transportation. Active Design: Shaping the (1995): 218–224. Policy Process.” Transport Policy 24, iss. C Sidewalk Experience. 2013. (2012): 83–90. Brookings Institute. Back to Prosperity: City of Pittsburgh, Department of City A Competitive Agenda for Renewing Beattie, Lucinda. Interview in person by Planning. Pittsburgh Downtown Plan. 1998. Pennsylvania. December 2003. http://www. Elizabeth Marcello, June 5, 2014. brookings.edu/research/reports/2003/12/ City of Portland. 1972 Downtown Plan. Beiler, Michelle Oswald and Sue McNeil. metropolitanpolicy-pennsylvania. February 9, 1972. “Climate Change Adaptation Practices: A Pilot Study Evaluating Transportation Bruner Foundation. Portland Streetcar: City of Portland, Bureau of Planning. Agency Progress.” The International Journal 2005 Rudy Bruner Award. 2006. Central City Plan. August 1988. of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses Burke, Ron. Telephone interview by 4, no. 4 (2013): 119–132. Elizabeth Marcello, June 6, 2014.

71 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation City of Portland, Office of Transportation. Deitrick, Sabina and Cliff Ellis. “New Gallimore, Mark. “Coordination or Elements of Vitality: Results of the Urbanism in the Inner City: A Case Study Competition: State Regulation of Motor Downtown Plan. 1998. of Pittsburgh,” Journal of the American Buses Under Private Ownership and the Clines, Francis X. “In Pittsburgh, a Planning Association 70, no. 4 (2004): Decline of Mass Transit in Pittsburgh.” Redevelopment Too Far?” New York Times, 426–442. The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and May 2, 2000. Biography 138, no. 1 (2014): 39–71. Denver Parks and Recreation Department Cohan, Jeffrey and Tom Barnes. “Marriage and Denver Public Works Department. Goldberg, Michelle. “Power to the City: Not Made in Heaven—City, County Denver Moves: Making Bicycle and Multi-Use The Progressive Case for Going Local.” The Figureheads Murphy, Roddey Often Butt Connections. May 2011. Nation, April 21, 2014. Heads.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March Dill, Jennifer. In discussion with Elizabeth 30, 2003. The Good Ride. “Good People Riding Bikes Marcello, July 2, 2014. – Dianna Ward.” http://thegoodride.org/ Coleman, Elsa, Neil Goldschmidt, Betty Dittmar, Hank. “A Broader Context for diannaward/. Merten, and Bill Scott. “Insurgents and Transportation Planning: Not Just an End Convergence: A Gathering at the Clinton Gould, Court. In discussion with by in Itself.” Journal of the American Planning Street Theatre June 14, 1994 to Celebrate Elizabeth Marcello, June 5, 2014. Association 61, no. 1 (1995): 7–13. 25 Years Since June 14, 1969 and the Early Grata, Joe. “Getting Around in the 24-Hour Years of the Goldschmidt Era in Portland, Dueker, Kenneth J. “A Critique of the Urban City.” Pittsburgh Magazine, January 25, OR.” Produced by David Bragdon and Transportation Planning Process: The 2014. Friends. Transcribed by Ernie Bonner, Performance of Portland’s 2000 Regional http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/ December 10, 1994. Transportation Plan.” Transportation Pittsburgh-Magazine/February-2014/ Quarterly 56, no. 2 (2005): 15–21. Collette, Carlotta. In discussion with Getting-Around-in-the-24-Hour-City/. Elizabeth Marcello, July 1, 2014. Eitler, Tom. “Charlotte’s Evolution from Green, Emma. “Can Mayors Really Save Sprawling Metropolis to City of Sidewalks.” Collinge, Chris and John Gibney, the World?” CityLab, September 23, 2013. CityLab, May 3, 2012. http://www.citylab. “Connecting Place, Policy, and Leadership,” http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/09/ com/design/2012/05/charlottes-evolution- Policy Studies 31, no. 4 (2010): 379–391. can-mayors-really-save-world/6968/. sprawling-metropolis-city-sidewalks/1890/. Colorado Metro Mayors Caucus. “Position Farmer, Stephanie. “Uneven Public Statement on FasTracks.” Adopted May Greenblatt, Alan. “The Progress and Transportation Development in 27, 2003. Promise of Pittsburgh’s Turnaround.” Neoliberalizing Chicago, USA.” Journal of Governing, November 2014. http://www. ———. “MMC FasTracks Futures Task Force Environment and Planning 43, no. 5 (2011): governing.com/topics/politics/gov- Recommendations to Metro Mayors 1154–1172. pittsburgh-turnaround-bill-peduto.html. Caucus.” Reaffirmed February 3, 2010. Feigon, Sharon. Telephone interview by Kirk Greenfield, John. “Evaluating Gabe Klein’s Cotugno, Andrew and Ethan Seltzer. Hovenkotter, December 19, 2014. Chicago Legacy.” Streetsblog Chicago, “Towards a Metropolitan Consciousness in Fein, Michael R. “Realignment: Highways November 5, 2013. http://chi.streetsblog. the Portland Oregon Metropolitan Area,” and Livability Policy in the Post-Interstate org/2013/11/05/evaluating-gabe-kleins- International Planning Studies 16, no. 3 Era, 1978–2013.” Journal of Urban History chicago-legacy/. (2011): 289–304. 40, no. 5 (2014): 855–869. Gustafson, Rick. In discussion with Curry, Scott. Telephone interview by Fetting, Michele. “What’s Next for the Elizabeth Marcello, July 2, 2014. Elizabeth Marcello, June 20, 2014. Pittsburgh Commute?” NEXTpittsburgh, Hamilton, David K. “Organizing Curtis, Carey and Nicholas Low, June 17, 2014. Government Structure and Governance Institutional Barriers to Sustainable http://www.nextpittsburgh.com/features/ Functions in Metropolitan Areas in Transport. London: Ashgate, 2012. whats-next-for-the-pittsburgh-commute/. Response to Growth and Change: A Critical Daley, Lauren. “Fighting Fitzgerald: County Fine, Helene S. “Participant Action Overview,” Journal of Urban Affairs 22, no. 1 Exec Steamrolls Through First Year in Research: Case Study of Community (2000): 65–84. Office.” Pittsburgh City Paper, Economic Development in Chicago.” Public Hamilton, Luann. In discussion with January 23, 2013. Administration Quarterly 18, no. 1 (1994): Elizabeth Marcello, June 3, 2014. http://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/ 35–53. fighting-fitzgerald-county-exec- Harris, Megan. “Pittsburgh Hires Forgey, Benjamin. “Pittsburgh, ‘Making It steamrolls-through-first-year-in-office/ Bicycle Director with Wealth of Metro Work.’” The Washington Post, May 23, 1992. Content?oid=1610527. Experience.” Pittsburgh Tribune, September Frazier, Eric. “How ‘Charlotte’s Grand 9, 2014. http://triblive.com/news/ Daley, Richard M. “Revitalizing Chicago Central Station’ Got Stuck.” The Charlotte adminpage/6760579-74/pro-mayor- Through Parks and Public Spaces.” Places Observer, March 23, 2014. peduto#ixzz3DJA3NuMk. 15, no. 3 (2003): 26–29. http://www.charlotteobserver. Hartzok, Alanna. “Pennsylvania’s Success Deitrick, Sabina. “The Post Industrial com/2014/03/22/4785948/how-charlottes- with Local Property Tax Reform.” American Revitalization of Pittsburgh: Myths and grand-central-got.html#.VICcUtbHJp0. Journal of Economics and Sociology 56, no. Evidence.” Community Development Journal 2 (1997): 205–213. 34, no. 1 (1999): 4–12. Hayden, John. Email messages to Steven Higashide, Dec. 22–23, 2014.

72 Holeywell, Ryan. “What the Departure of Jones, Diana Nelson. “Pittsburgh’s New Legacy, Crystal, Carey Curtis, and Sophie New York and Chicago’s Transportation Planning Director Ray Gastil Brings New Sturup. “Is There a Governance Model for Leaders Means for Cities.” Governing, York and Seattle Experience to Town.” the Delivery of Contemporary Transport November 5, 2013. http://www.governing. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 14, 2014. Policy and Practice? An Examination of com/news/headlines/What-the- http://www.post-gazette.com/local/ Melbourne and Perth.” Transport Policy 19, Departures-of-New-York-and-Chicagos- city/2014/06/14/Pittsburghs-new- no. 1 (2012) 8–16. Transportation-Leaders-Means-For-Cities. planning-director-Ray-Gastil-previously- Leib, Jeffrey. “FasTracks Unity Derailed.” html worked-in-Seattle-and-Manhatten/ Denver Post, March 5, 2009. stories/201406060202. Holms, Tobe. In discussion with Elizabeth ———. “Owens Opposed to FasTracks.” Marcello, June 12, 2014. Jordan, Gregory B. “Save the Port Denver Post, September 17, 2004. Authority: We Must Invest in Public Transit Hovey, Bradshaw. “Making the Portland or Watch Our Economy Wither.” Pittsburgh Liberty, Robert L. “Rising to the Land Use Way of Planning: The Structural Power of Post-Gazette, January 22, 2012. Challenge: How Planners and Regulators Language.” Journal of Planning History 2, Can Help Sustain Our Civilization.” Ninth no. 2 (2003): 140–174. Jurkiewicz, Carole L. and James S. Annual Norman Williams Distinguished Bowman. “Charlotte: A Model for Market- Humana. “Freewheelin at the Democratic Lecture in Land Use Planning and the Law Driven Public-Sector Management.” State National Convention: ‘What a Great Ride!’” from Vermont Law School, South Royalton, and Local Government Review 34, no. 3 Humana press release, August 29, 2008. VT, February 7, 2013. (2002): 205–213. Humana website. http://press.humana. Levin, Sam. “As Denver Becomes a com/press-release/current-releases/ Kardish, Chris. “The Military Man in Charge Major Bike City, Can It Put Safety First?” freewheelin-democratic-national- of Transportation in North Carolina.” Westword, October 11, 2012. http://www. convention-what-great-ride. Governing, April 2014. westword.com/2012-10-11/news/denver- Hunt, D. Bradford and Jon B. DeVries. Kaske, Michelle. “Pittsburgh Planning $2B bike-safety/. Planning Chicago. Chicago: APA Planners Project.” The Bond Buyer, March 8, 2010. Lurcott, Robert H. and Jane A. Downing. Press, 2012. Katz, Alan. “Revisionist Approach Finds Test “A Public-Private Support System for Huspeni, Dennis. “Denver’s New Zoning Ground Here.” Denver Post, November 14, Community-Based Organizations in Code Delivers.” Denver Business Journal, 1995. Pittsburgh.” Journal of the American June 29, 2012. Planning Association 53, no. 4 (1987): Katz, Bruce and Jennifer Bradley. 459–468. IBM Smarter Cities Challenge. Pittsburgh Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Report. 2012. Metros Are Fixing Our Broken Politics Lyons, William, Paul Shadle, Beth and Fragile Economy. Washington, DC: Deysher, Ronald Jensen-Fisher, Fred Ingram, Gregory K. and Armando Brookings Institution Press, 2013. Ducca, Frederick Salvucci. Review of the Carbonell, Yu-Hung Hong, and Anthony Transportation Planning Process in the Flint. Smart Growth Policies: An Evaluation Kerlik, Bobby. “Port Authority Names Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area. Cambridge, of Programs and Outcomes. Cambridge, Interim CEO McLean to Permanent Post.” MA: John A. Volpe National Transportation MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2009. Pittsburgh Tribune, January 24, 2014. Systems Center, March 1993. http://triblive.com/news/ Innes, Judith E. and Judith Gruber. adminpage/5471336-74/fitzgerald-mclean- Marsden, G., K.T. Frick, A.D. May, and E. “Planning Styles in Conflict: The board#axzz3KURhtHhR. Deakin. “How do Cities Approach Policy Metropolitan Transportation Commission.” Innovation and Policy Learning? A Study of Journal of the American Planning Klein, Gabe. In discussion with Elizabeth 30 Policies in Northern Europe and North Association 71, no. 2 (2014): 177–188. Marcello, May 30, 2014. America.” Transport Policy 18, no. 3 (2011): Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great Koski, Chris and Taedong Lee, “Policy by 501–512. American Cities. New York: Vintage, 1961. Doing: Formulation and Adoption of Policy Martin, Edward. “New Route.” Business through Government Leadership,” Policy Jaffe, Eric. “Where Obama’s Plan to North Carolina, July 2012. Studies Journal 42, no. 1 (2014): 30–54. Improve Urban Mobility Went Wrong.” Masciotra, Breen. In discussion with CityLab, May 21, 2014. http://www.citylab. Labalme, Elaine. “A Day in the Life of Elizabeth Marcello, June 5, 2014. com/commute/2014/05/where-obamas- Allegheny County Exec Rich Fitzgerald.” plan-to-improve-urban-mobility-went- ———. “What Went Down in Pennsylvania Keystone Edge, October 25, 2012. http:// wrong/371322/. Legislature this Year for Transportation?” www.keystoneedge.com/features/ Americans for Transit, November 26, 2013. richfitzgerald1025.aspx. Johnson, Elmer W. Chicago Metropolis http://www.americansfortransit.org/what_ went_down_in_pennsylvania_legislature_ 2020: The Chicago Plan for the Twenty-First ———. “What the New Wave of Leadership this_year_for_transportation. Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Means for Pittsburgh.” NEXTpittsburgh, Press, 2001. June 10, 2014. http://www.nextpittsburgh. Maya, Michael M. “Transportation Planning Jones, Chip. “Charlotte’s Moment.” The com/features/what-new-leadership- and the Prevention of Urban Sprawl,” New American, November/December 2008. means-for-pittsburgh/. York University Law Review 83, no. 3 (2008): 879–910. Leccese, Michael. Telephone interview by Elizabeth Marcello, July 24, 2014.

73 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation Mayor-Elect Rahm Emanuel’s Transition North Carolina Department of Port Authority of Allegheny County. Board Team. Chicago 2011 Transition Plan. 2011. Transportation, Division of Bicycle and of Directors Meeting Minutes, February 25, Pedestrian Transportation. Bicycling and 2011. http://www.portauthority.org/paac/ Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee. Bike Walking in North Carolina: A Long-Range portals/0/board/Board_Minutes_Feb2011. 2000. 1992. Transportation Plan. November 1996. pdf. ———. Bike 2015. 2006. http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/download/ ———. Spine Line Corridor Study. November bikeped_about_longrangeplan.pdf McCallum, Aylene. Telephone interview by 1993. Steven Higashide, December 29, 2014. Oliver, Gordon. “Portland Revs up for Pratt, Hadley. “From Here to There: Action.” Planning 60, no. 8 (1994): 8–12. McElwaine, Andrew S. “This Land is Spotlight on Allegheny County Executive Everyone’s Land.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Orcutt, Jon. Telephone interview by Rich Fitzgerald.” Pittsburgh Downtown March 18, 2001. Elizabeth Marcello, June 18 and August 27, Community Development Corporation, 2014. October 22, 2013. http://www. McElroy, Joseph. “Chicago Adopts Regional pghdowntowncdc.org/spotlight-rich- Planning Board.” American Planning Oregon Transportation Research and fitzgerald/. Association Journal 72, no. 1 (2006): 42. Education Consortium. A Brief Portrait of Multimodal Transportation Planning Pratt, Joseph A., Martin V. Melosi, and Metropolitan Planning Council. Bus in Oregon and the Path to Achieving Kathleen A. Brosnan, Editors. Energy Rapid Transit: Chicago’s New Route to It, 1890-1974. January 2010. http:// Capitals: Local Impact, Global Influence. Opportunity. 2011. www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/ Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Meyerson, Harold. “The Revolt of the Uploads/2010MultiModalTrans1890-1974. Press, 2014. Cities.” American Prospect, April 2014. pdf Prendergast, Alan. “One-Track Minds.” http://prospect.org/article/revolt-cities. Osher, Kathleen. In discussion with Westword, October 29, 1998. http://www. Michael, Jeff. In discussion with Elizabeth Elizabeth Marcello, July 10, 2014. westword.com/1998-10-29/news/one- Marcello, June 11, 2014. track-minds/full/ Patterson, Steven. “Transportation Chief Miller, Benjamin, Tracy Newsome, Daniel Driven Out by Daley.” Chicago Sun-Times, Public Opinion Strategies and Fairbank, Gallagher, Adrienne Walters, Ann Hartell, June 17, 2005. Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates. Key and Brian Byfield. “Transportation in North Findings From Survey on Transportation Peduto, Bill. “Bill Peduto Post Primary: Carolina: Case Studies and Commentary Options – Mecklenburg County, North Where Do We Go From Here?” Interview from NCAPA Contributors.” Carolina Carolina. August 27, 2012. http://docs.nrdc. with Paul Guggenheimer. Essential Planning Journal 36 (2011): 29–40. org/energy/files/ene_12090401d.pdf. Pittsburgh. National Public Radio, WESA, Mirk, Sarah. “Get to Know a Bicycling May 22, 2013. http://wesa.fm/post/bill- Ratner, Keith A. and Andrew R. Goetz. Zealot!” Portland Mercury, June 7, 2010. peduto-post-primary-where-do-we-go- “The Reshaping of Land Use and Urban http://www.portlandmercury.com/ here. Form in Denver through Transit-Oriented BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/06/07/get- Development.” Cities 30 (2013): 31–46. ———. “Interview with City Councilman to-know-a-bicycling-zealot. William Peduto of the 8th District.” The Roddey, Jim. “Disrespecting Transit Board.” Moynihan, Deirdre. “A Farewell from Piep!” Allegheny Front, May 17, 2006. http://www. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, January 31, BikeDenver, June 28, 2013. http://www. alleghenyfront.org/story/interview-city- 2013. bikedenver.org/bicycle-news/a-farewell- councilman-william-peduto-8th-district. Santoni, Matthew. “Port Authority from-piep/. Peirce, Neal R., and Robert Approves Overhaul, Fare Increase.” Naparstek, Aaron. Telephone interview by Guskind. Breakthroughs: Re-Creating the Pittsburgh Tribune, October 24, 2009. Elizabeth Marcello, May 28, 2014. American City. New Brunswick, NJ: Center Satler, Gail. Two Tales of a City: Rebuilding for Urban Policy Research, 1993. Nery, Jerry. In discussion with Elizabeth Chicago’s Architectural and Social Marcello, July 11, 2014. Pendall, Rolf, Juliet Gainsborough, Kate Landscape, 1986–2005. DeKalb, IL: Lowe, and Mai Nguyen. “Bringing Equity to Northern Illinois University Press, 2006. Neufeld, Randy. In discussion with Elizabeth Transit-Oriented Development: Stations, Marcello, June 3, 2014. Schlickman, Steve. Telephone interview by Systems, and Regional Resilience.” Building Elizabeth Marcello, June 18, 2014. New Jersey Department of Transportation Resilient Regions. Vol. 4 of Urban and and Pennsylvania Department of Regional Policy and Its Effects. Washington, Schmitz, Jon. “Bland Canned.” Pittsburgh Transportation. Smart Transportation DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2012. Post-Gazette, February 1, 2013. Guidebook: Planning and Designing ———. “Port Authority board fires CEO Highways and Streets that Support Pierson, Paul. “Increasing Returns, Path Bland.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February Sustainable and Livable Communities. Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” 2, 2013. March 2008. American Political Science Review, 94, no. 2 http://www.post-gazette.com/hp_ (2000): 251–267. Nichols, Christy. In discussion with mobile/2013/02/02/Port-Authority-board- Elizabeth Marcello, June 2, 2014. Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment fires-CEO-Bland/stories/201302020260. Group. Transit Revitalization Investment North Carolina Department of ———. “State Facing Transportation Crisis.” Districts: Opportunities and Challenges for Transportation. Bicycle & Bikeway Act of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 11, Implementation, Final Report. July 2011. 1974. 2010. http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/download/ bikeped_laws_bikeway_act.pdf.

74 ———. “Transportation Plan Calls for $4.7 Turnbull, Katherine. Performance Wisniewski, Mary. “What Happens to Billion for Southwestern Pennsylvania.” Measurements of Transportation Systems: Biking after Daley?” Chicago Sun-Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 23, 2014. Summary of the Fourth International November 1, 2010. Conference. Transportation Research Schroeppel, Ken. “Denver Commits to Young, Ricky. “Momentum Building for Two Board, 2013. Protected Bike Lane on 15th Street.” Transit Measures.” Denver Post, August 20, DenverUrbanism, March 14, 2013. http:// Unsworth, David. Telephone interview by 1999. denverurbanism.com/2013/03/denver- Elizabeth Marcello, July 16, 2014. Zatarain, Ken. In discussion with Elizabeth commits-to-protected-bike-lane-on-15th- Urban Land Institute. Public Transportation Marcello, July 2, 2014. street.html. System, Greater Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Seltzer, Ethan. In discussion with Elizabeth May 2014. Marcello, July 1, 2014. U.S. Census Bureau. 1990 Census of Sherman, Roger. In discussion with Population and Housing. “Population and Elizabeth Marcello, July 11, 2014. Housing Unit Counts” (CPH-2-7, Colorado). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Smith, Chris. In discussion with Elizabeth Office, 1992. Marcello, June 30, 2014. ———. 2010 Census of Population and Smith, Heather and William Graves. Housing. “Population and Housing Unit “Gentrification as Corporate Growth Counts” (CPH-2-7, Colorado). Washington, Strategy: The Strange Case of Charlotte, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2012. North Carolina and the Bank of America.” Journal of Urban Affairs 27, no. 4 (2005): U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. 403–418. Committee on Transportation and Smith, Michael J. “Center City Charlotte.” Infrastructure. Chicagoland Transportation Economic Development Journal 10, no. 2 Needs for the 2016 Olympics: Hearing (2011): 11–17. Before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on Transportation Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission. and Infrastructure. 110th Cong., 1st sess., 2015–2018 Transportation Improvement October 29, 2007. Plan for Southwestern Pennsylvania. 2014. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban ———. 2040 Transportation and Development. “HUD Announces 2011 Development Plan for Southwestern Sustainable Communities Awards.” HUD Pennsylvania. 2011. press release, December 15, 2011. HUD Stacey, Bob. In discussion with Elizabeth website. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/ Marcello, June 30, 2014. HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_ advisories/2011/HUDNo.11-274. State Smart Transportation Initiative. PennDOT’s Smart Transportation. 2011. U.S. Department of Transportation. Urban Decision Making for Transportation Terry van Dijk & Gerd Weitkamp. “Power in Investments: Portland’s Light Rail Transit Dreams? The Spatial Line, by Sheldon M. Edner and G.B. Effects of Chicago’s Failed Olympic Bid.” Arrington, Jr. March 1985. International Planning Studies 19, no. 2 U.S. General Accountability Office. (2014): 111–131. Flexible Funding Continues to Play a Role in Thomas, Clarke. “Hard to Swallow ISTEA Supporting State and Local Transportation Is the Clean-Air Approach to Highway Priorities. November 15, 2012. Planning.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April Van Heuven, Piep. Telephone interview by 28, 1993. Steven Higashide, December 29, 2014. Thompson, Gregory L. “How Portland’s Van Meter, Bill. Telephone interview by Power Brokers Accommodated the Anti- Elizabeth Marcello, July 14, 2014. Highway Movement of the Early 1970s: The Decision to Build Light Rail.” Business Walker, Jarrett. In discussion with Elizabeth and Economic History On-Line 3, 2005. Marcello, July 1, 2014. http://www.thebhc.org/sites/default/files/ Ward, Dianna. “B-Cycle.” QC Independent thompson.pdf. Radio, June 2, 2014. http://qcindependent. ———. “Taming the Neighborhood com/qc-independent-podcast-dianna- Revolution: Planners, Power Brokers, ward/. and the Birth of the Neotraditionalism West, Dace. Telephone interview by in Portland, Oregon.” Journal of Planning Elizabeth Marcello, July 15, 2014. History 6, no. 3 (2007): 214–247. Tsay, Shin-pei. In discussion with Elizabeth Wilkins, Van. “Pittsburgh in Transition.” Marcello, April 4, May 1, and May 7, 2014. Mass Transit, January 1999.

75 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation STAND UP 4 TRANSPORTATION DAY, DENVER, 2015. GETTY IMAGES.

Designed by The Graphics Office

Cover: photograph by Bill Deere, lettering by John Downer

Copyright 2015 TransitCenter

A robust civic sector is the single most prevalent factor among all the cities we studied.

77 A People’s History of Recent Urban Transportation Innovation A People’s Recent Urban of Transportation History Innovation

We hope that more urban residents will take up the fight to challenge the status quo and reclaim the streets that are the lifeblood of their cities.

1 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004

www.transitcenter.org 78