No Comments

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: Utica’s Genesee Street Transformation

Written by Arian Horbovetz and originally published on The Urban Phoenix blog

For 6 years, I’ve been dreaming of the day when Genesee street in downtown Utica, NY might be reduced from four lanes to two with a turning lane and bike lanes. To be perfectly frank, this was a reality I feared would never materialize. Despite the fact that countless cities and towns across the country have successfully executed a “road diet,” thus making a street safer for pedestrians, cyclists AND drivers with zero-to-minimal impact on travel time, so many Uticans had abrasively rejected my vision every time I brought it up.

Thanks to the vision of Utica Common Council member Katie Aiello, that formally unrealized hope for Utica’s historic Genesee Street was re-striped a little over a month ago with two travel lanes, a left-hand turning lane and bike lanes, just like I’ve imagined so many times.

This was done as part of a 90-day trial period to assess the impact of the project. But as is typical when a city is introduced to the concept of Complete Streets and road diets for the first time, many people responded with a flurry of dissent.

Hot tip… if you ever want to sit back and watch a relentless flow of verbal bile and fire-scorched sense of logic, suggest a road diet in a downtown to a city and metro population for the first time. Just grab a substantial bag of buttery, salted popcorn and watch the horror unfold.

I’ve spent a significant amount of time assuring the people of Utica that projects like this make our streets safer for everyone, as well as helping to elicit private investment and provide greater accessibility of community resources for the population. A big part of this assurance is telling people that if this kind of project worked on the Main Street of my home city of Rochester with a population of over 200,000 people, it will work for a city with a population of just over 60,000 people. Genesee Street in Utica and Rochester’s Main Street downtown each have similar daily traffic counts (approximately 9,000 vehicles per day, well below the 15,000-20,000 that begin the four-lane road conversation).

But, as usual with these sorts of projects, my fact-backed urgings and invitations to references and resources in support of road diets were often met with a “no thanks,” as many community leaders choose their own opinions over actual data that has been repeated hundreds, if not thousands of times. My favorite comments from leading members of a prestigious local organization implied that bike lanes and greater walkability would make the area more accessible for “crack dealers.”

The irony of the above social media take is that the opposite is far more often true… that walkability, traffic calming, and bike access complement and enhance small business and local arts culture.

What it all boils down to is this… many residents still have an insulated “out my front door” view that their city or community is unique. And while to some extent this is true, for the most part, Rust Belt (or as I like to call them, Robust Belt) cities are all dealing with, and recovering from, the same barriers. And again, as much as we struggle to admit the solutions of de-prioritizing the automobile, creating small business-friendly environments, solving issues of equity and access and laying the fertile soil for human-centered economic growth are the broad but key lenses of change for all communities, it’s the proven truth. Despite the aforementioned opposition by many of Utica’s community leaders, the road diet that has taken place on Genesee Street is a small but significant puzzle piece with regard to the solution.

Maybe you’re still not comfortable thinking that your city isn’t as unique as you think it is. OK, I’ll concede that for a moment… but what I will not waiver on is that, as soon as we Americans get in our cars, we act more predictably than ever.

We all make subjective statements like “Massachusetts drivers are the worst,” or “Indiana drivers always pass on the right.” The truth is, people don’t drive differently because they’re from a different locale. Real world data shows that there are scores of given principles that determine the behavior of drivers. If the roads are wide, people will drive faster. If there are no vertical points of reference (trees for example) people will drive faster. If there is parallel parking, people will drive slower. If the lane is 9 feet wide instead of 11 feet wide, people will drive slower. And why is automobile speed so important when blended with walkability? Because of the shocking data from the National Traffic Safety Board…

A pedestrian hit by a car traveling 40 miles per hour is nearly twice as likely to be killed than if the car was traveling 30 miles per hour. Building infrastructure that reduces speeds, even by a few miles per hour, has the potential to save lives. But in order to do this, we must accept that traffic in our community doesn’t behave differently than traffic in other locales. We must accept that the drivers in Utica behave the same way as they do anywhere else… it’s the infrastructure that determines how safely or unsafely people pilot their vehicles.

This is typically where people will stand up and point out that cyclists and pedestrians break the law as well. My answer is always the same… sure, just like drivers, those who walk, bike and scooter break the law… the difference is that they are not piloting a 3,000-6,000 pound vehicle capable of 100mph that doesn’t just threaten their own life, it threatens the life of other people and property as well. Car crashes are the close #2 killer of children and teens, after gun violence. The NHTSA states that car crashes in the United States cost nearly a trillion dollars annually. And much of this burden is directly shouldered by the taxpayer. Why, then, would anyone rally against a mobility strategy that had the potential to save lives, lessen the chance of personal injury AND save taxpayer money?

The answer is entitlement that is always thoroughly-veiled in the word “freedom.” Drivers often view projects like this as yet another assault on their personal freedom. The irony, of course, is that transportation infrastructure that prioritizes the most expensive modality (automobiles) means that one doesn’t have a choice in how to access jobs and resources in their community. Because driving is subsidized so heavily in the US, there is no equitable alternative that is feasible or practical. Because of far higher gas taxes, gasoline in Europe costs twice as much… but the average American spends four times as much on transportation as the average European. This has led to the antithesis of transportation freedom for the American, replacing it with a blatant “pay-to-play” scenario. You must own a car to have the opportunity to succeed.

No, simply re-striping Utica’s Genesee Street won’t, on its own, invigorate a pedestrian and bike-friendly culture in the city’s downtown. No, it won’t single-handedly increase sales at local stores, restaurants, museums and theaters. It should be seen, instead, as a social and economic fulcrum, or a sort of fertilized soil that can help grow the seeds of prosperity for Utica’s future. It’s a small step, but one that so many cities have taken toward a more socially and economically prosperous community.

No Comments

The Expectation of Speed

Written by Arian Horbovetz and originally published on The Urban Phoenix blog

Hop off the New York State Thruway at Syracuse, head South on the I-81 expressway and you will understand. Cruising above the city’s downtown, you see the urban streetscape as if you’re flying over it, past it, like it’s something you want to avoid on your way to another more rural destination. Lost on most who travel this vehicular express route is the truth that bypassing cities with above or below-grade highways was a principle element in the demise of American cities. Indeed, the worst thing that happened to our urban culture was creating the expectation that you, the driver, can speed through it, past it and around it.

From expressways to 4-lane one way streets, we have fostered a belief that any urban corridor should be traversable by car quickly and easily, even if the result is an erosion of walkable streets and small business interests. Fast cars mean less street level activity, simply because we as humans are averse to environments that are loud and dangerous… even if we aren’t always aware of it.

Today, I was almost hit by a car while legally riding my electric scooter on a city street. The driver accelerated around a slower car into the bike lane, and missed me by a foot as he sped away in his 2-ton pickup truck. The street in question has multiple lanes of traffic in either direction, giving the driver the sense that he is in control, and that this environment is built for speed. Anyone who stands in the way of this construct should be dismissed, even if it means the potential injury or loss of human life. This kind of street design doesn’t just empower drivers like this one to drive fast, it justifies it. The design of urban right-of-ways sends a clear message to everyone about what’s important, who is prioritized, and more importantly, who isn’t. Speed limit signs mean little when we create environments where the potential for speed is high and the risk of speeding FOR THE DRIVER is extremely low.

Our insanely overbuilt American roadways have created an expectation of automobile speed, while the byproduct is far too often severe injury or loss of life for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Nearly as costly is the effect that the expectation of automobile speed and convenience has on cities, communities and the way we prioritize space. When forty-four foot wide roads create a loud and uncomfortable pedestrian experience, the shops, storefronts, parks and street level amenities that rely on pedestrian prioritization fail as well.

The impact of speed on pedestrian loss of life is clearly highlighted by the fact that while vehicle miles driven was significantly reduced in 2020, the rate at which pedestrians were killed by cars actually went up. In fact, pedestrian deaths are at their highest rate in 30 years. And as always, we are quick to protect our children from any and all potential threats to their safety, and yet car crashes are the leading cause of death in children and teens.

The expectation of automobile speed, convenience and prioritization must be challenged as we begin to realize the nauseating metrics of car-centered communities. The importance of seeing cars as dangerous, exclusive and community-killing vehicles has never been so important.

No Comments

Big Houses and Long Commutes, Not Smart Phones, Eroded Community

Written by Arian Horbovetz and originally published on The Urban Phoenix blog

Not a day goes by that I don’t see someone 35+ on social media feeds gripe about how the smartphone has ruined the fabric of communication and togetherness in our country. The irony, of course, is that 95% of these posts are from someone using a smartphone app. And while mobile technology has certainly changed the way we engage with information, as well as one another, the catalyst of disconnection and isolationism in this country began long before cell phones were a twinkle in someone’s creative eye.

As we move farther away from jobs and resources, and as the amount of time we spend in our cars increases, the opportunities to spontaneously connect with strangers is significantly lessened. In a country where individualistic transportation is subsidized and prioritized above all else, Americans are incentivized to take up residence farther away from jobs and resources than ever before. By default, more people must rely on single-occupancy car travel as a means of daily mobility.

In his book Going Solo, Eric Klinenberg states that in 1950, U.S. houses averaged 985 square feet of space, while in 2000 that number exploded to 2,200 square feet. This astonishing shift toward more square footage, combined with the fact that the American family is shrinking in size while the number of bedrooms per household is increasing, sets the tone for a disconnected, individualistic narrative where personal space is king and a sense of community within the home is negated.

I distinctly remember a conversation I had with an old friend in which she told me that, when she was a teenager, her family moved from a small house in the city to a large, cookie-cutter suburban house. Her parents thought that more space for everyone to sprawl would mean a happier and more comfortable future. But, she recalled, the opposite became true. Where the family was forced to share space in their former small home, the new and larger home allowed everyone in the family to come home from work and school and go their separate ways. Walks became car trips, and family nights on the couch became a thing of the past. While individual family members had a far greater opportunity to pacify their desire for personal space, the family cohesion created by the constant need to share ones own space with others quickly eroded. The family drifted, conflicts arose, and the parents eventually filed for divorce. To this day, my friend largely blames this disillusionment of her family on the move to a bigger house.

Image Credit: Jen Doyle

While this is just one anecdotal example, it speaks to the notion that increased square footage rarely equates to the greater sense of happiness and stability that we think it does. Far more often, true contentment and a feeling of togetherness is created when we are forced to share and manage space with others.

One of the most interesting determinants of personal contentment is closely related to commute times. Research clearly shows that longer commutes have a decidedly negative affect on mental and physical health. One study in England found that adding 20 minutes to ones commute equated to a 19% pay cut with regard to job satisfaction. Clearly, the time we must travel to reach our place of employment is a huge determinant of our overall health and happiness.

While this might surprise hoards of suburban-dwellers who champion the fact that their hour-plus round trip car commute means they can live a happier life apart from urban environments, market-rate housing prices in major employment sectors tell the real story of the value of commute times. In major metros like New York City, Washington DC, Boston, LA, Seattle and San Francisco, it is nearly impossible for the average worker to find affordable housing within a 2-hour round-trip commute radius. If you’re a fan of “market rate” pricing as a means of economic and societal value, look no further than the metric of housing cost in relation to employment accessibility in major metros to tell you that commute times are a capitalistic variable.

Image Credit: Alekjes Bergmanis

The smartphone certainly has its place in the sea of human disconnection. But it is a symptom, rather than the cause, of community erosion that we, as Americans, have been fostering for decades. The blatant desire to isolate the variables of human interaction by creating our own spaces and realities that negate the outside world is nothing new.

Through racially driven land use, and suburban sprawl, the prioritization of car culture, the glorification of big box stores and eventually online retail, and a million other movements away from street-level community involvement, America (specifically white America) has gone all-in on individualism and exclusivity. The smart phone is but a symptom of a social shift that has been gaining momentum for over a century. Before we go blaming the smartphone for the end of real human interaction, perhaps we need to look at the history of the American desire to separate, isolate and divide.