Northfield’s Complete Streets policy one of the nation’s best!

Posted on April 9, 2013 by Betsey Buckheit

Northfield’s Complete Streets policy has been recognized as one of the top 10 policies in the country for 2012 (we ranked #5 out of the 125 Complete Streets policies adopted in the US in 2012).

What’s so great about having a Complete Streets policy? My big policy goal is to link transportation and land use planning to increase the productivity and sustainability of Northfield. To reach that goal requires some consciousness-raising, disseminating information about the costs of development for cities, and many incremental steps. A Complete Streets policy is part of making transportation planning more intentional, better linked with surrounding land uses, and increasing awareness of the critical role streets play in cities’ budgets, safety, economic development, stormwater management, quality of life and, of course, getting around town. By itself, the policy won’t accomplish much, but it is a piece of the bigger picture.

Here’s a bit more news coverage of the announcement: Envision MN highlights Northfield’s accomplishment; Streetsblog provides some criticism about Complete Streets policies; Better Cities calls Complete Streets a “key strategy” for revitalization of cities. Here’s some old coverage about some of the people who helped organize the Complete Streets effort in Northfield and even a mention in Rice County’s public health information.

Could Northfield be the next Vancouver?

Posted on February 28, 2013 by Betsey Buckheit

I’ve never been to Vancouver, BC, although it’s been on my “to go” list for a long time. Now, even more, I’d like to visit. Why? Their transportation policy (and the cross country skiing in BC is excellent).

Here in Northfield, we’ve struggled to make even small changes in policy to help Northfield grow in ways which encourage active transportation, productive land use, and a viable transit system. Even so, every policy gets challenged (or simply ignored) when a new small decision needs to be made. Complete Streets? Great, until a street project must be approved. GreenStep Cities and sustainability? Wonderful, but seldom considered. Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan? Super, until we try to take steps to implement it.

Vancouver, however, thinks big and has since 1997 when it approved an influential Transportation Plan which prioritized – rank ordered – modes of transportation. Vancouver has just approved Transportation 2040 which affirms the priorities for moving people (for moving goods, etc. there are separate rankings): Walking, Cycling, Transit, Taxi/Commercial Transit/Shared Vehicles, and Private Automobiles.

The hierarchy is intended to help ensure that the needs and safety of each group of road users are sequentially considered when decisions are made, that each group is given proper consideration, and that the changes will not make existing conditions worse for more vulnerable road users, such as people on foot, bicycle, and motorcycle. Each time a new roadway is designed or an existing one changed, opportunities for improving walking and cycling will be reviewed…This is a general approach and does not mean that users at the top of the list will always receive the most beneficial treatment on every street. In highly constrained urban environments, it is not always possible to provide the ideal facilities for all users’ needs.

Even better, Vancouver links transportation and land use (“Use land use to support shorter trips and sustainable transportation choices”), does not flinch from saying the goal is to reduce auto-dependence (“Manage the road network efficiently to improve safety and support a gradual reduction in car dependence. Make it easier to drive less”) and understands that the economic vitality and emergency response must also be part of the overall plan (“Support a thriving economy and Vancouver’s role as a major port and Asia-Pacific gateway while managing related environmental and neighbourhood impacts. Maintain effective emergency response times for police, fire, and ambulance”).

Here in Northfield, we need to try to be more Vancouverish (at a scale appropriate for a community of our size/location) for the long term health (financial, physical, environmental) of the city.

Fun urbanism – more slides

Posted on February 26, 2013 by Betsey Buckheit

British football fans may soon be able to have more fun than just the game at St. James Park in Newcastle. Slides from the stadium seating 53,000 to the parking area and train station are planned and waiting for approval. Utrecht’s “travel accelerators” got the ball sliding, so to speak, and Newcastle is looking to make the slides part of a pocket park near the stadium. As one of the slide designers noted: “We want people to ride the slide, then go up the stairs and do it again.”

There is one other sliding possibility in Newcastle already – a 230m zip line from the Tyne Bridge across the Tyne River.

Have we outgrown zoning?

Posted on February 24, 2013 by Betsey Buckheit

Zoning is no longer appropriate, writes architect Roger Lewis in the Washington Post recently. It is easy enough to agree – zoning is essentially segregation. We put big houses here, little houses over there, multi-family housing way over there (check out some of the history of land use regulation and discrimination), industrial out there, and commercial on the highway. The inappropriateness comes from both the inequities, but also the community costs in terms of excess infrastructure and unproductive development.

So, have we outgrown zoning? Yes, but now what? Here in Northfield, we have a pretty smart comprehensive plan which could use some updating and focusing. Then we have some really lousy land use regulations which are slated for revision (and with some luck and leadership, for reform or replacement). What a golden opportunity to move beyond putting things in their zones to plan and regulate for the long term health of the community.

Some inspiration (a very small selection):

Long term thinking, not easy short term answers: some thoughts from San Diego based Placemaker Howard Blackson. Placemaking is rapidly becoming a planning buzzword which could become just as meaningless as “mixed use” (an oxymoron when you think about it), but I’d like to think of it simply as: identify and work with the specific characteristics of the place – Northfield – rather than overly generic solutions. Here’s another good one from the Placemakers.

Don’t just ask the community “What do you want/like?” but also educate residents about the features, costs and benefits of various development choices.

Downtown is not a cute museum: work to reinvigorate downtown’s image as the vital and distinctive economic core of Northfield which generates significantly more tax revenue per acre than other areas.

Think local: Consider how supporting local businesses helps keep money in Northfield (some info about co-ops, infill and redevelopment) and how land use and related regulation can help rather than hinder local enterprises.

Streets are really, really important. The street network helps define the density of a community, connects places within the city and the city to elsewhere, plays a huge role in safety, stormwater, municipal costs, economic development, and quality of life. Street decisions are also long term and very hard to change. Indeed, how we manage car traffic is critical to thinking about other features of urban development. Streets matter.

Dear Senator Dahle

Posted on January 28, 2013 by Betsey Buckheit

With the power shift in the state legislature, I’m looking forward to the legislative session with a teeny tiny bit of hope and a whole lot of apprehension. My apprehension level rose precipitously yesterday when I read my new state senator’s tweet (@KevinDahle) that he’d been meeting with a district mayor as part of working to increase local government aid. Oh dear, Senator Dahle, but that’s starting at the wrong end of the policy process and so early in the session, too.

Dear Senator Dahle,

A very nice deck chair from the Titanic

Congratulations on your election and the start of the new session! As a recovering local government official, I know that the state legislature has a great influence on how cities can do their business. I write today to offer a few ideas about how the state could help rather than hinder local governments. I encourage you (indeed my support in any future election depends on it) to look at the larger, longer term policy picture rather rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic ship of the state of Minnesota.

More than 20 years ago, the Citizens’ League published Remaking the Minnesota Miracle which studied the state/local fiscal system to determine what “realigning of responsibilities and revenue raising authority would have to occur” to finance state and local services and increase accountability. Although the specific recommendations are interesting (the report calls for eliminating LGA), I hope you’ll consider the 4 principles for evaluating the fiscal system which seem very relevant and not time-bound:

Accountability: Responsibility for services should be assigned to the entity that is accountable to the electorate, the recipient of the service, and the governmental unit or persons paying for the service

Effectiveness: Responsibility for services should be assigned to the entity, public or private, that gets the job done well and measures for results.

Economy: Responsibility for services should be assigned to the entity, public or private, that can supply the service at the lowest possible cost. For instance, in developed areas, water treatment and sewage facilities can be provided less expensively on a regional basis than on an individual city basis.

Equity: Responsibility for services should be assigned to the entities that can finance the service equitably and ensure equity in the delivery of services to all persons.

Certainly, almost any proposal will address some of these values strongly and others more tentatively or will demonstrate the tension between values. Equity or accountability might strain economy, for example. Still, these values can help think about what level of government or what private entity is best situated to deliver or fund services and, as a result, where decision-making control should reside.

I hope you have received a copy of the Property Tax working group’s report which also addresses what property taxes are intended to fund and to disentangle state control from local functions. The history of the development of the property tax in Minnesota is well worth reading as “You may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?”

Finally, consider how other regulation affects the tax picture and how the state legislature can incentivize better spending strategies and foster innovation at the local level.

The “grow our way to prosperity” model must be reexamined to allow cities, counties and the state to maximize their existing investment in infrastructure rather than expanding infrastructure (and the obligation to maintain it) in the hope of attracting enough new business to pay for the existing system. There is a burgeoning amount of data showing the cost of this strategy to local and state government.
Consider school siting philosophies which demand open space and favor new schools rather than renovation also make it harder for children to walk to school (adding busing costs and congestion).
Think about how state government, with its larger scope, can help local entities work collaboratively (especially those outside the Metro Council’s jurisdiction) to deliver services efficiently and economically rather than pitting them against each other or forcing a sort of local protectionism. We need to be able to develop shared solutions for transportation, land use, resource protection, and service delivery.
Transportation and infrastructure spending is a big deal at all levels of government. Land use, environmental regulation, public health and quality of life are deeply intertwined with transportation policy; please try to see the whole landscape to make policy which helps local and state government invest wisely, support productive growth patterns, and build places where we want to live, work and invest time and effort.

Thanks for reading and I await your updates and other news of what’s happening in St. Paul. I’m counting on your leadership to help develop policies which benefit all Minnesotans for the long term, not just the ones yelling at you right now. Of course, I also know that change happens incrementally as you work to build support and make compromises (and that’s just within the DFL), but I am looking for the conversation to shift away from reactive government to thoughtful, sustainable policy-making. Good luck!

Yours sincerely,

Betsey Buckheit

More about development economics and history

Posted on December 26, 2012 by Betsey Buckheit

My office…before

I’ve been cleaning out my office at the end of my Council term. In addition to recycling mountains of paper and gaining a great deal more storage space, I’ve been pleased to discover that my personal policy development has been quite systematic from my days on the Planning Commission to the present.

I even found my first Planning Commission fan mail. This little note from 2002 was sent in response to my questions about one of the residential developments underway at the time and applauding for standing up to the Council which was calling me anti-development. What I was starting to ask, in a very clumsy way, was what’s the cost to taxpayers of various kinds of development rather than trying to reduce the impact of government on development costs for particular projects (which is what people usually glom onto).

My point all along has been: government is a player in the market (by regulating what can be built, incentivizing/subsidizing certain types of projects, by its tax structure) and as a party to individual development deals like subdivisions, planned unit developments, etc.

While working to develop policy and regulations which do not unfairly burden business (in the short term), the city must also consider its own (that is, taxpayers’) interests in the long term (call it a governance perspective).

Fortunately, many others have started asking the same questions (and/or the internet resources have been exploding to make them more accessible) over the last 10 years and here are a few of the things I wish I’d been able to bring up in 2002 and certainly want to highlight in 2012:

For all that residential development, I wish I’d had The power of greenfield economics ready at hand and been able to speak intelligently about “the proverbial elephant in the room [which] is the amount of sprawling, redundant public and private infrastructure we’ve built since the end of World War II.”

So now, as Northfield struggles to fund maintenance of all that infrastructure it has already built, the city might be able to ask how government policies (from the feds on down) have been part of the problem and how Northfield can look beyond what seem like quick solutions to longer term, sustainable changes which both support economic development without adding to Northfield’s long term debt burden and forgoing tax revenue through tax abatements or other incentives.

And some follow-up:

That NY Times series on subsidies got a lot of attention from the policy people. MN2020 published its own 2 part series with Part 1 and Part 2 (the more interesting of the two with details of an Iowa subsidy situation). MN2020 also cites its 2007 report Chasing smokestacks, stranding small business focusing on shifting MN public policy. Strong Towns included links to the NYT series in their Friday Digest.

…and after

How streets got this way

Posted on July 8, 2012 by Betsey Buckheit

Or, how the auto industry made pedestrians unwelcome by a focused marketing campaign to change consumers’ perceptions about driving, streets, etc.

I’m not interested in demonizing the auto industry here, but rather I’d like to suggest that how our community has been built or will be built in the future is not just market demand, but government regulation and funding, as well as private sector promotion to steer the market. If that’s right and we’d like to see some change in streets and walkability, then what are the policy pieces which need to change? It’s not just requiring sidewalks or bike lanes, but considering the broader context of how our choices have been constrained and what we need to do to make different choices easier (and more affordable).

Complete Streets update

Posted on June 28, 2012 by Betsey Buckheit

Complete Streets in history

First, some bad news from the federal level where the Complete Streets provision has been removed from the long-debated, much amended Transportation bill.

Other better news from the top: the National Complete Streets Coalition is incorporating as an official program of Smart Growth America which makes sense – streets, no matter how complete, are still best thought of in the larger context of land use, environment, economy and more.

But some good news at the local level. Tracy Davis, former Planning Commission chair, member of the state Complete Streets external advisory committee, and all-round interesting person has given Northfield’s Complete Streets policy and related issues a little more publicity on the webpage for her new KYMN radio show Think Twice (program notes on Tracy’s blog). She also links to MNDOT’s new multimodal 20 year plan just released for public comment. The Northfield Complete Streets policy draft is considerably shorter (2 pages rather than MNDOT’s 102 pages), so please read it and send comments, criticism, and/or complements before the July 17 Council meeting when we’re scheduled to adopt the policy.

Fun Urbanism

Posted on March 1, 2012 by Betsey Buckheit

Good dog!

There’s New Urbanism and Tactical Urbanism, but I’m trying to promote Fun Urbanism. I love cities, especially big cities, because there are unexpected places or events which help multitudes of strangers play together.

What better place to help people play than the London Underground? Millions travel by Tube – why not make it fun? With elephants. And art.