Topic: City and Regional Planning

Tackling Climate Change: The Not-So-Hidden Role of Land (A 75th Anniversary Lincoln Institute Dialogue)

June 23, 2021 | 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Free, offered in English

Watch the Recording


Watch the Recording

 

Land and water policy have the potential to shape the built and natural environment to reduce energy demand, remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and help communities and natural systems thrive as the climate changes. Daily decisions about the use, taxation, and stewardship of land are opportunities to advance both climate mitigation and resilience in ways that enhance quality of life and place. Dr. Sivan Kartha of the Stockholm Environment Institute and Michelle Manion of Mass Audubon join Amy Cotter of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy to discuss how land policy, from local to global scales, is essential to meeting climate goals. 

Speakers

Dr. Sivan Kartha is a senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute whose research and publications for the past 25 years have dealt with policy strategies for addressing climate change, focusing on equity and effectiveness in the design of an international climate regime. Dr. Kartha has also worked on mitigation scenarios, market mechanisms for climate actions, and the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of biomass energy.  

Michelle Manion is vice president of policy and advocacy for Mass Audubon. Trained as an economist and in public policy and natural resources, she has over 20 years of experience advocating at the state, federal, and international level for effective, workable solutions to mitigate climate change, protect biodiversity, and create sustainable natural systems. 

Amy Cotter is director of climate strategies for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. An urban planner by background, she has more than 25 years of experience developing and implementing land policy to promote equity and sustainability. She oversees the Lincoln Institute’s research, education and practice related to climate change, planning practice, and scenario planning. 


Details

Date
June 23, 2021
Time
12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Language
English
Registration Fee
Free
Cost
Free

Not So Fast

Lessons from Washington, DC's Experiment with Slow Streets
By Liz Farmer, June 3, 2021

 

One day last spring, during the early weeks of the pandemic, a tree fell across a residential street in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, DC. With the fallen tree making it impossible for cars to pass, the streetscape quickly changed.

Kids were out on their bikes and their scooters, neighbors were out talking to each other from across the street,” resident and Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen told a local media outlet this spring. “And that moment stuck out for me because it really was a [time] when everyone desperately needed more safe outdoor space.”

With many urban commuters suddenly working from home last year, the dramatically reduced car traffic in cities provided an opportunity to provide safe outdoor spaces for the public and formalize the type of spontaneous scene Allen describes. Washington was one of dozens of cities worldwide that piloted “slow streets” programs, restricting portions of mainly residential streets to local and emergency traffic and lowering speed limits. In some places, streets were closed to traffic entirely.

The programs were designed to support neighborhood-based safe social distancing for walkers, runners, cyclists, and other residents who just needed a breath of fresh air. While the concept of slow streets was generally well received, its implementation in Washington and other cities was sometimes rocky—and sparked much-needed discussions about equity, access, and planning.

Washington, DC’s program totaled 26 miles, which is comparable to those piloted in other major cities. As the city’s pilot effort wrapped up this spring, planners there—who are in the midst of updating moveDC, the city’s long-range transportation plan—were gathering public input on the experiment and considering how this experiment could inform decisions going forward. The lessons surfacing in DC, which cover issues ranging from transportation inequities to signage logistics, could also be valuable to other cities that are initiating or expanding slow streets projects this year, from Nashville, Tennessee, to Omaha, Nebraska.

The pandemic has been hard on all of us, but there have been some benefits,” DC Council Transportation Committee Chair Mary Cheh said at a virtual hearing held in March to gather feedback on the slow streets pilot. “We’ve seen a different future or the possibility of a different future. So we should jump on that.”

The comments that came at the hearing in DC echoed those of residents in places like Oakland, Minneapolis, and Baltimore that also piloted slow streets: While they supported the concept, they were disappointed by the execution. Concerns included a lack of connectivity—among the slow streets themselves and between the streets and other destinations—as well as logistical aspects like traffic enforcement and signage. 

  • Connectivity counts. Residents and mobility advocates in DC said not all the city’s designated slow streets were well connected, either to each other or to important points in neighborhoods. This seemed to be particularly true in lower-income areas and communities of color. For example, one slow street in the Southeast section of the city, Fairlawn Avenue, parallels a freeway. On the other side of the freeway is the Anacostia River Park, but the slow street did not connect to it. Instead, it ended at a busy intersection with no separate bike lanes, requiring pedestrians and cyclists to travel through a noisy underpass and cross freeway onramps and offramps to get to the Anacostia River Trail footpath. “It is not a welcoming trip into the park,” said transportation equity advocate and writer Ron Thompson. By contrast, four connected slow streets across wealthier neighborhoods in the Northwest section of the city created a 2.5-mile path between scenic Rock Creek Park and a retail hub on Massachusetts Avenue.
  • Enforcement is necessary. Although DC’s Department of Transportation stated from the outset that its slow streets were meant to be “self-enforcing,” that was an aspect of the experiment that just didn’t work, residents said. Residents reported that the lightweight construction barriers used to mark the entrance to slow streets in DC simply made them look like temporary work zones and that the streets didn’t have enough signage explaining the program. As a result, cars still regularly zoomed through and people didn’t always feel safe using the streets. This has been a problem in other cities, as well; Baltimore resident Abigail Burman told the Greater Greater Washington transportation blog in December that she regularly dragged slow streets barricades off the sidewalk. “I’ve literally never seen a barrier in the actual street,” she said.
  • Community buy-in is critical. Slow streets in DC also ran into deep-seated mistrust related to longstanding inequities in urban transportation. DC’s poorest district, Ward 8, whose population is majority Black and heavily dependent on public transportation, did not have any slow streets. The city had planned to introduce them, but Ward 8 councilmember Trayon White added an amendment to the citywide slow streets law barring modifications there. “Many residents in Ward 8 have not supported bike lanes and other measures that appear to force aspects of gentrification and displacement,” White wrote in his amendment. Thompson, a Ward 8 resident, said at the March hearing that the opposition around things like protected bike lanes “is part of a greater conversation about how the government has failed to deliver services to communities like Ward 8. These infrastructure improvements are seen as a sign of neighborhood change and displacement, and we have to work together to correct decades and decades and decades of that being true.”

This kind of feedback will help the city map out its next steps, according to Everett Lott, interim director of the city’s Department of Transportation. Putting out a call for public input via social media in March, Lott wrote, “We are reviewing the lessons learned from this experiment as we seek a permanent and more effective strategy to safely create spaces for people.”

Jessie Grogan, associate director of Reduced Poverty and Spatial Inequality at the Lincoln Institute, echoed the sentiment that slow streets programs are “a good idea, but we have a lot to learn about how to execute it.” The programs, she added, are a positive sign that cities are stepping back from prioritizing cars. “In the last five to ten years, bike and pedestrian advocates have gotten really good at getting cities to think more dynamically about how streets can be used,” she said.

But a big lesson learned, she added, is that cities need to be more intentional about the purpose of the streets in the first place—then design accordingly. “If you want to get people from point A to B without getting in cars, then how do you do that safely for people walking or biking?” she said. “The way it was implemented [in DC], it wasn’t in service of that goal.”

Despite the drawbacks, slow streets remain a popular idea with mobility advocates, and the lessons of 2020 will inform pilot programs and more permanent planning decisions going forward. In Omaha, Nebraska, Sarah Jones, cofounder of the local transportation equity nonprofit Mode Shift Omaha, is working on funding for a pilot program and said she plans to incorporate the lessons other cities have learned. She’s looking at planters for street barricades and more colorful signage to raise awareness. She also plans to seek community feedback before, during, and after the experiment. And in her car-loving city, she’s thinking about how to frame the program so that everyone sees how they benefit.

Omaha is kind of anti-bike, so we really have to communicate that it’s not just about bikes—it’s for people jogging, strollers, scooters,” said Jones. “It’s about how being outside is better for mental health . . . and how we can connect places and nodes like neighborhood parks to a central retail district. If you can do that, I think that’s crucial.”

 


 

Liz Farmer is a fiscal policy expert and journalist whose areas of expertise include budgets, fiscal distress, and tax policy. She is currently a research fellow at the Rockefeller Institute’s Future of Labor Research Center.

Photograph: Public feedback in Washington, DC, has identified potential improvements to the city’s slow streets program, ranging from more equitable implementation to more effective signage. Credit: District Department of Transportation.

 


 

Related Content

Mayor’s Desk: A Capital Reckoning in Washington, DC

Rebuilding with Equity: The Future of Smaller Legacy Cities

June 29, 2021 | 1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.

Free, offered in English

Watch the Recording

 

Leaders in America’s smaller legacy cities—former industrial and manufacturing hubs like Dayton, Ohio, and Gary, Indiana—can adopt equitable development strategies to meet the need for sound, long-term economic growth; to respond proactively to calls for racial equity; and to remedy the inequities laid bare by the COVID-19 pandemic and Black Lives Matter movement. Improving equity broadens everyone’s access to opportunity while boosting economic prospects for an entire city.

This webinar will focus on why equitable development is a sound strategy for smaller legacy cities today. Practitioners will share stories from legacy cities that are already embracing equity and inclusion. Presenters will articulate why equity is an important goal for their city or organization, and what equitable development looks like in the smaller legacy city context.

The webinar will build on the Policy Focus Report Equitably Developing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Investing in Residents from South Bend to Worcester, published in May 2021.

Speakers

headshot of Dorian A. Hunter

Dorian A. Hunter is a passionate advocate for the underserved and underrepresented. Growing up on the south side of Springfield, Ohio, he saw firsthand how disinvestment and a lack of resources can affect a community. The impacts of those experiences led to Dorian dedicating his skills and talents towards building up his community. He is a cofounder of multiple organizations including DreamVision (2017), Springfield’s NAACP Youth Committee (2018), and The Unified Collective (2020). Dorian holds a B.A. in marketing and communications and M.A. in data analytics, both from Wittenberg University. Dorian was recognized as a Key Player by Cedarville University in 2018 and also received the Perseverance award from Concerned Black Students during his time at Wittenberg University. He recently started as vice president of business development & marketing and producer for Elliott Insurance Agency in Springfield, Ohio.

headshot of Lark T. Mallory

Lark T. Mallory practices law in the areas of taxation, corporate transactions and real estate transactions. Currently, Lark serves as general counsel and director of CDFI Investments for The Affordable Housing Trust for Columbus and Franklin County, an organization that provides low interest rate loans to developers of affordable housing. Lark’s key responsibilities include negotiating and drafting all legal agreements for the organization, coordinating transactions with outside partners, addressing all legal needs for the organization, and providing legal support to the organization’s Board of Directors. Prior to joining The Affordable Housing Trust, she was a partner with a 500-lawyer law firm with an eight-state footprint. Currently, Lark serves on the boards of the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium and River South, the organization that issues bonds to supports the development efforts in the River South area of downtown Columbus, Ohio. Lark is a CPA (inactive) and holds a B.S.B.A. in accounting and a law degree from The Ohio State University and an LL.M. in taxation from the University of Florida College of Law.

headshot of Robert M. Simpson

Robert M. Simpson is president of the CenterState Corporation for Economic Opportunity (CenterState CEO), an independent and forwardthinking economic development strategist, business leadership organization and chamber of commerce dedicated to the success of its members and the prosperity of the Syracuse, New York, region. He previously served as the cochair of the Central New York Regional Economic Development Council, from 2011 to 2018 by appointment from the governor. He holds board and advisory seats with the CNY Biotech Accelerator and the Downtown Committee of Syracuse. Robert also serves on numerous community boards, including the Central New York Technology Development Organization, the Upstate Minority Economic Alliance, the Syracuse Regional Airport Authority, the Lifetime Healthcare Companies, and others. Accolades include 40 UNDER 40 recognition by CNY BizEvents (2006); Onondaga Citizens League Citizen of the Year (2010); the Loretto Health System’s Legacy Award (2019); among others. Robert previously worked for Defenders of Wildlife, the State Environmental Resource Center in Madison, Wisconsin, and for the Office of John D. Rockefeller IV, in the United States Senate. Robert graduated from Colgate University in 1997, and earned an M.P.A. from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University.


Details

Date
June 29, 2021
Time
1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Registration Period
May 21, 2021 - June 29, 2021
Language
English
Registration Fee
Free
Cost
Free

Keywords

Economic Development, Housing, Inequality, Planning, Poverty