Monthly Archives: February 2013

Cars Are Parking Machines, Not Mobility Machines

Over the past few days several different friends have shared with me a post about how cars are parked 95 percent of the time. So, I guess I better get blogging on this topic!

Parked cars in Provo. Note how what should be a sidewalk here is actually a parking lot. So this spot is particularly awful.

Parked cars in Provo. Note how what should be a sidewalk here is actually a parking lot. So this spot is particularly awful.

The post offers three different methods for testing how much of the time cars are parked. They’re all pretty easy to do, and the author ulimately concludes that Donald Shoup — author of The High Cost of Free Parking, among other things — is correct when he argues that cars are parked most of the time.

So, yeah, that’s basically a waste of resources.

But what I really like is where the author goes from there:

One reason to talk about this is to highlight the importance of parking. It is what cars do the vast majority of the time.

It highlights a crucial inefficiency of mass private car ownership. It points towards huge parking space savings (an enormous land bank) that shifts away from mass car ownership might open up, if only we could massively improve the alternatives including making car-sharing and other ‘metered access to shared cars’ (MASC) more of a mass market phenomenon. – See more at:

In other words, it would be much more efficient, almost mind-bogglingly so, if we only had the number of cars in a city that were needed at any given moment.

So, I might need a car for 30 minutes at 9 am and you might need one for an hour at noon. Right now, we both probably have our own cars, but it would really make more sense for us to have just one car between us. On both individual and city-wide scales this would translate into huge savings, greater efficiency, and generally prettier spaces.

Parked cars on Center Street.

Parked cars on Center Street.

Its also worth mentioning that if cars are parked nearly all the time they’re not really “mobility” machines so much as they are space-wasting devices. In other words, though we think about cars as a means of transportation, that’s almost incidental when compared to their “primary” role, which is sitting around. There are a lot of implications to this reasoning, but if nothing else presenting and discussing the situation more honestly would probably help us tackle problems like too much parking and too many cars.

1 Comment

Filed under driving, economics

“I Do Not Care,” Says New Street Art

A friend recently alerted me to a charming new piece of street art in central Provo:

A photo taken by a friend.

A photo taken by a friend.

I haven’t had a chance to see this piece in person yet, but apparently it’s on 100 East, between 100 and 200 South. When I plugged it into Google Translate, I was told “je m’en fiche” means “I do not care” in French. However, “je men fiche” apparently means “I plug men.” I think I see an apostrophe in there, but I suppose each viewer will have to decide which translation is truer to her/himself.

I’ve written many times before about guerrilla art, most often in the case of Leuven, and I think it’s fair to say I’m a fan of it when it’s interesting, beautiful or intellectually stimulating in some way. I’d say this piece fits the bill and makes Provo just a little bit more delightful.


Filed under arts

How Many People Have to Die

Earlier this week, Fox 13’s Ben Winslow reported on a fatal auto-pedestrian accident in Ogden.

Screen shot 2013-02-25 at 9.35.05 PM

Screen shot 2013-02-25 at 9.33.00 PM

But here’s the worst part:

Screen shot 2013-02-25 at 9.33.51 PM

After Ben’s original story on the fatality on Christmas Eve, UDOT apparently also said they were considering* putting in a pedestrian light in this spot.

In case you’re curious, here’s what that area of Ogden looks like:

Screen shot 2013-02-25 at 9.38.54 PM

Screen shot 2013-02-25 at 9.40.28 PM

Screen shot 2013-02-25 at 9.40.18 PMJudging from these pictures I’m skeptical that a pedestrian light would make a huge difference, though anything would certainly help; as is so often the case with these types of accidents, this area is marked by over-wide stroads that are completely hostile to pedestrians. It’s dangerous, ugly, inconvenient and actively encourages unsafe behavior, such as speeding or ignoring foot traffic.

It’s baffling that someone was even walking in this spot in the first place, given how unpleasant it looks.

I feel like I’m beating a dead horse with these accident posts, but they keep happening so I keep pointing out the obvious: people will continue to die needlessly as long as we have atrociously designed streets like this.

*This post originally stated that Ben Winslow reported that UDOT would put in a pedestrian light. He actually reported that they were considering putting one in.

1 Comment

Filed under driving, Uncategorized

Snow: A Case Study in Traffic Calming

Last month, I argued that Provo gets narrower streets after snow storms and that those narrow streets work just fine. The point was that we should be building new narrow streets and slimming the ones we already have because, clearly, they work.

But a video I recently discovered from Streetfilms explores how snow storms have other traffic-calming effects as well:

The video focuses on “neckdowns,” or elements added to street corners to slow cars as they turn. The idea is to increase safety for pedestrians and, as the video points out, the cars aren’t really using the space anyway.

The video shows a whole series of accidental neckdowns resulting from snow and tracks cars as they make turns. As the narrator points out, they’re “not stopping anybody from getting where they need to go.”

The takeaway here is that after snow storms we often have working examples of how our own streets should be structured; we don’t need to rely on distant case studies or theoretical models. Instead, we just need to walk outside a few days after a snow storm, look at how much street is being used, and only plan to build that.


Filed under driving

A Mall-To-Neighborhood Case Study

Last month, I argued that struggling malls could be converted to mixed-use housing developments. The idea is that adapting malls accomplishes several goals simultaneously and economically; it diversifies a city’s housing stock, capitalizes on a huge but (in Utah County) floundering asset, cuts down on the need for massive parking lots, and potentially produces a cooler kind of living space in more monotonous cities.

The Orem mall is a prime candidate for adaptive reuse — or in other words being converted to housing.

The Orem mall is a prime candidate for adaptive reuse — or in other words being converted to housing.

I used Provo’s Towne Centre [sic] mall as my case study, but that’s not even the best candidate.

Orem’s University Mall is already two thirds empty, so there’s really no reason not to give this idea a try there.  Orem also lacks a central downtown, which problem could be remedied by turning the current mall into a diverse neighborhood. The area around University Parkway and 2230 North — near Movies 8 and Shopko — is also a prime candidate for redevelopment; there’s a lot of space there, but the current configuration hasn’t produced anything really successful.

But the real question is, would any of this actually work?

A recent article in The Atlantic Cities seems to suggest it would. The article describes a historic mall in Providence, Rhode Island, that is about to reopen as a housing development:

[…] this spring a shuttered shopping center in downtown Providence will be reborn in micro form, with two stories of micro-apartments above ground-floor micro-retail.

The end product, at least according to the pictures, looks kind of like a much cooler version of City Creek.

There are a few caveats: the Providence mall is historic, micro apartments aren’t for everyone, Providence isn’t Provo, etc. etc.

If relatively stable Providence can sustain a mall-to-neighborhood conversion, fast-growing Provo should easily be able to do the same.

If relatively stable Providence can sustain a mall-to-neighborhood conversion, fast-growing Provo should easily be able to do the same.

But the specifics aren’t what cities like Provo should copy. Instead, the broader idea of taking something old and adapting it is the point. The end product can be historic, industrial, or just plain vanilla and can be designed to appeal to any demographic. In the end, however, it simply makes sense to take big empty-ish buildings and turn them into some sort of living space — especially in Utah County, where the population is expected to double in the coming decades.

One more thing also deserves mentioning: implementing this idea could have an array of benefits on the community, but it won’t work if we make the areas surrounding our adaptation cites more hostile. I’m specifically speaking of the area around Movies 8 that I mentioned above. That spot may get a super street, which would produce more, faster traffic. It would be hostile to pedestrians and bikes.

That spot already produces many failed business, which I’ve argued is a result of its design, but if we make it more hostile to people it’ll be that much harder to adapt it into a livable neighborhood. And as this recent example from Providence shows, adaptation really is something that can work.

1 Comment

Filed under construction, Development

Cities Should Oppose The Prison Relocation

Lawmakers are currently considering a proposal to begin moving the Utah State Prison, which sits prominently on the west side of I15 in Draper. The idea is that the prison occupies valuable space along the Wasatch Front that would be better used for new development. More specifically, some people want to create a tech hub in Draper.

Everyone would benefit from more high tech companies in region, but suggesting that the prison needs to move to bring them in is a fallacious argument. Indeed, it would be vastly better to encourage tech companies to locate inside existing development. As a result, cities like Salt Lake and Provo should be doing everything they can to make sure new jobs aren’t lost to future sprawl. That means opposing the prison relocation.

The arrow points to the approximate location of the Utah State Prison. Lawmakers want to move the prison to make room for tech development, but it makes more sense to create tech hubs in existing urban centers.

The arrow points to the approximate location of the Utah State Prison. Lawmakers want to move the prison to make room for tech development, but it makes more sense to create tech hubs in existing urban centers.

Relocating the prison creates a variety of shorter-term problems. For one, it means more new development even as most cities along the Wasatch Front already have very low densities and plenty of room for more infill. In other words, there is absolutely no need for more massive new subdivisions.

Moving the prison also creates more distant development that requires more driving; Draper isn’t proximate to anything, so new development will require long trips to get anywhere. Historically, Draper has also been filled with car-oriented development, meaning residents have to drive short distances for everyday errands as well. It’s a lose-lose situation, and is particularly baffling at a time when we’re trying to clean up our worst-in-the-nation air.

But city governments should particularly oppose the prison relocation because it effectively stacks the decks against their efforts to win talent and jobs. Why would a tech company move to Provo or Salt Lake, for example, when they can get cheap land from the government in the middle of nowhere?

In other words, moving the prison is a government subsidy for sprawl. It would involve spending hundreds of millions of dollars to just make it less appealing to develop a tech hub in an urban center.

Relatedly, last year I contrasted the new campuses of Amazon and Apple. Basically, Apple is building a huge new building out in the suburbs, while Amazon is investing in the urban core of Seattle.

Lawmakers who want to move the prison are effectively trying to create Apple-style development, even though analysts have said the Amazon version is actually the one that is benefiting its surroundings the most.

Ultimately, there’s no reason cities like Salt Lake and Provo couldn’t, or shouldn’t, create internal tech hubs. Moving the prison, however, makes that harder because it uses government money to pick winners and losers.


Filed under Development, economics

Not So Super Streets

One of the most popular posts ever on this blog discusses the “interchange boondoggle,” or the many failings of Provo’s new I15 on-off ramp on Center Street (click here for a second post on this topic).

The post is popular, I think, not because it’s particularly great but because the onramp is so obviously horrible and everyone hates it. It’s like a nightmare, except that it’s real and cost more money than most of us will make in a lifetime.

And yet despite the absurdity of this piece of built environment, Provo may get another highly questionable, computer-generated intersection that promises to be a disaster for pedestrians, cyclists and humans generally.

The new intersection is called — ironically I hope — a “super street” and is being considered for an intersection in north Provo:

Utah Department of Transportation officials told legislators Wednesday they are considering using that new design — sometimes called a J-turn, or a restricted crossing U-turn — in Provo at the intersection of University Parkway and 2230 North.

The idea is to increase traffic flow and cut down on driving time for most people. Fair enough.

But it’s also so complicated that I had a hard time figuring out what was going on — other than more driving:

The Super Street design would force all traffic on 2230 North to turn right. Motorists who wanted to go straight or left could make a U-turn a few blocks down on University in a provided spot. Those who wanted to go straight could return to the intersection and turn right onto 2230 North.

Luckily, The Atlantic Cities also recently reported on “crazy intersections” that are designed to make us safer. That article included this illustrative video:

That intersection seems needlessly complex just at first glance, but the real problem is that like all of these other exotic projects UDOT likes to put in — things like diverging diamonds — this makes the street far more hostile to people. As The Atlantic Cities puts it:

In theory – i.e., in conflict-point diagrams – these intersections should be safer than more traditional ones. But there are two caveats to that promise: Sangster is really talking about safer intersections for cars. Pedestrians and bikers aren’t figured into any of these models, and Sangster has yet to encounter designs that do a good job of incorporating them (or transit). There also isn’t much hard data on the safety of these designs because so few of them have been built (and even accurately modeling them on a computer can be tricky and expensive).

The article goes on to note that these ideas are best for times “when a local road outside of town has grown so congested that it needs to be converted into a highway.”

That point about hard data is also worth emphasizing. The Center Street I15 interchange almost certainly looked good in a diagram, but there was so many accidents that they had to alter it with a stop sign. I still see accidents almost every time I use it and, again, it’s widely hated. So diagrams aren’t necessarily a good indicator of how people will actually behave.

UDOT is considering a confusing new kind of intersection for this already bad spot. Instead, this space needs to be more pedestrian-friendly.

UDOT is considering a confusing new kind of intersection for this already bad spot. Instead, this space needs to be more pedestrian-friendly.

The intersection in question is certainly bad as it currently stands, but it’s is not a highway outside of town. It’s also a prime candidate for the kind of parking lot infill that I advocated in this post — though a bigger, ugler and more dangerous intersection wouldn’t promote infill. And in any case, it’s the type of place that we need to make more pedestrian friendly and more bikeable. It needs to be more human.

But this “super street” doesn’t look promising. Instead, it looks like more car-oriented infrastructure that is increasingly out of tune with a city striving for a high standard of living. And ultimately, Provo doesn’t need another disastrous boondoggle.


Filed under commuting, construction