F

or an afternoon, in 2015, residents temporarily transformed an aging business district in Akron, Ohio’s North Hill neighborhood. Local business owners and leaders worked with the Better Block Foundation to demonstrate what more was possible for the intersection of North Main Street and Cuyahoga Falls Avenue. Pop-up businesses, parklets, bike lanes, and art installations erased vacancies and reinvigorated a space that, in the early 20th century, had been a pioneering route for the city’s streetcar.

But today, despite the much-lauded 2015 vision, there are still several vacant lots and storefronts for every heavily trafficked Nepali grocery store, Italian restaurant, or church lining the four-lane thoroughfare, which drives a wedge through the central business district.

The city is focused on revitalizing North Hill as part of a six-month pilot project that is convening local leaders with their counterparts in Rochester, New York, and Lansing, Michigan. This community of practice, organized by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Rose Center for Public Leadership in Land Use in partnership with Enterprise Community Partners and the American Planning Association, seeks to explore the challenges of equitably revitalizing midsize postindustrial cities—sometimes known as legacy cities. The project includes visits to each city, coaching, webinars, and technical guidance.

Concentrated most heavily in the Midwest and New England, legacy cities were once essential to building American middle-class prosperity. Yet as the national economy has transitioned away from manufacturing, many of these communities have struggled with entrenched poverty, disinvestment, population loss, vacancies, and a workforce with skills that do not match employers’ needs.

Small and midsize legacy cities face even greater challenges because they often lack major corporate headquarters or significant anchor institutions, assets that have been leveraged successfully in larger postindustrial cities such as Pittsburgh. 

“These cities are often overlooked in national efforts at revitalization,” said Jessie Grogan, senior policy analyst at the Lincoln Institute. “While researchers and community leaders have identified strategies to revitalize places like Detroit and Baltimore, less attention has been paid to how these approaches might transfer to communities like Akron.”

Challenges in North Hill  

By many measures, Akron is a typical smaller legacy city. After earning recognition for having the nation’s fastest growing population in 1916 and for being home to Goodyear and other manufacturing giants, the city has lost about a third of its residents since the 1960s, recently stabilizing at around 200,000.  

North Hill has fared better than many parts of Akron, due in part to the new wave of immigrants who have followed in the footsteps of the Italian, Polish, and Irish who arrived a century ago. The tracts of single-family rental homes surrounding the central business district now house a more diverse population than 80 percent of U.S. urban neighborhoods. These immigrants from countries such as Nepal, Myanmar, and Bhutan have helped to populate homes and storefronts in a city trying everything to bounce back from decades of population loss. They have found opportunities in business ownership and jobs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

In 2017, the Knight Foundation recognized North Hill as an up-and-coming neighborhood at a “tipping point,” and provided funding for the North Akron Community Development Corporation to pursue concentrated business development. Yet, the city has found it difficult to guide North Hill because of aging infrastructure, speculative landowners, and difficulty engaging local residents in leadership and decision-making. 

During a recent convening of the community of practice in Akron, participants visited the Exchange House, a permanent product of Better Block’s pop-up experiment. With $155,000 from the Knight Foundation’s Knight Cities Challenge, Better Block rehabilitated a single-family home into a space that now includes an upstairs AirBnB; space on the first floor for health clinics, sewing classes, and spiritual group meetings; and a pocket park in the backyard. 

As manager, Katie Beck helps to organize events like Multilingual Meals, during which attendees discuss community issues in nine different languages. She sees the potential for groups to interact across ethnic and socioeconomic lines, but also the challenges of building a sense of community among such a diverse population. 

“North Hill has silos, lines, and boundaries between different communities,” Beck said. “At the Exchange House, we are able to observe and reflect on those boundaries, while we aim to cross those lines through diverse programming in our space.”

While North Hill has always been a neighborhood of immigrants, it has also long been home to a large African American population, which experienced devastating urban renewal in the mid-20th century. Revitalization efforts often focus on branding the area as an international district, but doing so leaves these residents out of the narrative, Beck says.

As part of the tour of North Hill, participants from Lansing and Rochester joined Beck, Akron city officials, and other local civic leaders, including representatives from Asian Services in Action, Bridging the Gap Ministries, and Urban Vision Ministry, for a roundtable at the Exchange House.

“Having that conversation in that broad of a group really brought to the forefront that there are a lot of different views about how the community should move forward,” said Heather Roszczyk, innovation and entrepreneurship advocate for the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development in Akron. “It firmed up the message that we need to have additional community conversations, even among the leaders, to figure out a collective way forward.”

The cohort walked through North Hill’s business district, site of the 2015 Better Block project. Roszczyk said that promoting the business district can be challenging: business owners not only have to come up with the capital to get their businesses off the ground, but also the funding to rehab and repair aging infrastructure. In addition to vacancies, the business district has a number of lots where businesses have been torn down. 

“Although North Hill has had a lot of energy, this hasn’t translated to construction,” said Jason Segedy, Akron’s director of planning and urban development.

In some cases, landlords who own properties on the stretch have been unresponsive to interested buyers. “To some extent, we have a landlock on economic development,” Beck said.

North Hill’s business district is part of Akron’s Great Streets Initiative, which aims to enhance the city’s business districts through community engagement, business development, and improved public spaces. While only a handful of business owners have reached out about the vacant spaces on the main street, programs like the forthcoming Rubber City Match are designed to help fill this pipeline. The city will work with community leaders to assess the needs of the North Hill business district and use neighborhood data to direct business owners to promising locations.

“We are really the testing ground for different economic development methods, of what could be successful in other parts of the country,” Beck said.

Finding a Way Forward in a Community of Practice

While each city is still finding its way forward, lessons are already migrating from place to place. In Lansing, a visit with the Capital Area Housing Partnership left a lasting impression on Akron’s Segedy because of the organization’s strong community presence. It inspired him to think about how the Exchange House could expand its offerings and potentially open up additional centers throughout North Hill. Segedy was also inspired by the transformation of an abandoned auto warehouse into the Lansing Brewing Company, and of a former school building into the Liberty Hyde Bailey Center, which contains affordable senior housing, day care, and space for performances and other activity.

“There haven’t been any huge revelations, but it has been very valuable to compare notes and see the different approaches these cities have taken to redevelopment,” Segedy said.

Where organizers see the cities’ common challenges, such as community engagement, the community of practice brings in experts to facilitate a conversation.  

At the convening in Akron, participants learned how a larger legacy city—Detroit—engaged residents in long-term planning. Charles Cross, director of landscape architecture for the nonprofit Detroit Collaborative Design Center, described how his team collaborated with residents in the Detroit Works Project, a planning process that produced the Detroit Future City Strategic Framework, a comprehensive document intended to guide Detroit’s revitalization.

Cross’s team traveled around Detroit with a roaming table to stimulate discussion, created a home base for drop-in conversations, held Twitter town halls, built a mobile phone app, and sought out residents in public spaces throughout the city. Through the work of the design center and other partners, an estimated 30,000 conversations helped shape the framework.

“Each of the cities, to varying degrees, seems to feel that, ‘we are the city so we can’t do that; we are distrusted by the immigrant population or the longstanding African American population,’” said Amy Cotter, associate director of Urban Programs for the Lincoln Institute. “Through the conversation, presentations, and programming, we aimed to focus on how city governments can forge unconventional partnerships to achieve more.”  

Emma Zehner is communciations and publications editor at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Photos in order of appearance:

In 2015, residents worked with the Better Block Foundation to temporarily transform North Hill’s business district, adding bike lanes, parklets, and pop-up businesses. Credit: Better Block Foundation.

The owners of Dhimal’s Mini Marts stand outside the grocery store, which is located in North Hill. Credit: Shayne Wynn.

The Exchange House has become a central gathering space for residents of many ethnicities in North Hill. Credit: Exchange House.

North Hill residents gather for Multilingual Meals, an event at the Exchange House. Credit: Shayne Wynn.

Jason Segedy, director of planning and urban development, at the City of Akron, speaks to community of practice participants from Akron, Lansing, and Rochester. Credit: Amy Cotter.

As part of the meeting in Lansing, participants stopped at Akronym Brewing. Credit: Amy Cotter.

As rain sheeted across the 150,000-square-foot roof of a transit facility in one of the most flood-prone neighborhoods in Worcester, Massachusetts, things looked ominous. But instead of posing a threat, that stormwater slithered into a jumble of purple coneflower, Joe Pye weed, Russian sage, and other flood- and drought-tolerant plants growing between the complex and nearby Quinsigamond Avenue.

The transit facility, built on a remediated brownfield, represents a $90 million investment for this small city. Green infrastructure elements like that rain-absorbing bioswale were considered a must, according to William Lehtola, chair of the Worcester Regional Transit Authority Advisory Board: “We want to provide the best possible environment for the city and our customers and employees,” he said. “Not just in our buses, but in our facilities too.”

As smaller legacy cities like Worcester and nearby Providence, Rhode Island, continue the grueling work of rebounding from the severe economic and population losses suffered since their manufacturing heydays, the green approach is gaining traction. Despite challenges ranging from financial constraints to deteriorating infrastructure, many legacy cities have realized that investing in—and, in some cases, mandating—green infrastructure yields multiple benefits. Projects such as rain gardens, bioswales, urban farming, and tree planting, whether introduced on a small scale or implemented citywide, are an effective way to revitalize public spaces, manage stormwater, improve public health, and deal with the impacts of climate change, from increased heat to floods.

“Green infrastructure can address multiple challenges, and provide amenities as well,” says Professor Robert Ryan, chair of the Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning Department at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Ryan has led courses on greening legacy cities including Worcester. “Cities like Worcester and Providence are the ideal place for this approach.”

Cultivating this shift isn’t always simple. While new environmental codes, regulations, and awareness have increased the frequency of green infrastructure projects, they still often coexist with structures and streetscapes from an earlier era, when nearby waterways were de facto sewers, and pavement was the go-to choice for urban improvements.

As legacy cities across the country implement green infrastructure projects and strategies, they are coping with an important reality: They cannot just create themselves anew. They can, however, adapt and evolve.

A New Lease on Life in New England

Located in a hilly area of central Massachusetts, Worcester is home to an estimated 185,000 people. Its population peaked at 203,486 in 1950 and dipped to about 161,000 by 1980.

Worcester was always the economic hub for surrounding Worcester County. But it earned the moniker “Heart of the Commonwealth” thanks to connections with Boston (via railroad in 1835) and with Providence (via the Blackstone Canal in 1828 and the Providence & Worcester Railroad in the late 1840s), which made it an increasingly important industrial and transportation hub. It became known for its machine tools, wire products, and power looms.

Providence, perched on the banks of the Providence River at the head of Narragansett Bay, has followed a similar path, albeit in a different setting. The coastal city is home to approximately 180,000 people. That’s up from a twentieth-century low of 156,000 in 1980, but far smaller than the peak of more than 253,000 in 1940. The state capital, Providence became a manufacturing powerhouse after the Revolutionary War, with factories churning out goods such as jewelry, textiles, silverware, and machinery, and shipping them from its port. At one point, it was one of the wealthiest cities in the country.

In both cities, the industrial activity and the population eventually declined and, coupled with suburbanization, left hollowed-out sections of formerly vibrant urban cores (see Figure 1).

But, as is the case with many legacy cities, people have slowly rediscovered the assets these communities offer. As Alan Mallach and Lavea Brachman explain in the Lincoln Institute report Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities, these assets include downtown employment bases, stable neighborhoods, multimodal transportation networks, colleges and universities, local businesses, historic buildings and areas, and facilities for arts, culture, and entertainment (Mallach 2013).

Providence, for instance, is home to Brown University, the Rhode Island School of Design, the University of Rhode Island, and Johnson & Wales. Worcester is home to more than a dozen institutions of higher learning including Clark University, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and University of Massachusetts Medical School. Both cities have major hospitals and performance venues. And both cities have revitalized their downtowns with signature projects.

Providence successfully rebranded itself as an arts and cultural hub beginning in the 1990s. In a massive green infrastructure effort, the city unearthed the Providence River, formed by the confluence of the Woonasquatucket and Moshassuck rivers, which had long been buried under parking lots and railroad tracks, and lined the banks with parks and pedestrian-only walkways. (“The river has to be an integral part of the city,” said then-Mayor Vincent “Buddy” Cianci Jr. “Don’t cover it, don’t block it, don’t pollute it. Celebrate it and use it.”) The massive effort changed the character of the downtown, which soon began to draw new development projects—including ambitious renovations of vacant mill buildings—as well as new residents and businesses.

Worcester is replacing its failing downtown mall with the $565 million, mixed-use CitySquare redevelopment, reconnecting the central business district with other burgeoning parts of the city such as Washington Square—the home of the renovated Union Station—the restaurants of Shrewsbury Street, and the hip Canal District. In fact, Worcester was deemed “high performing” among cities of its size in the Lincoln Institute report Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities (Hollingsworth 2017). Factors cited in this designation included its proximity to Boston and easy access via commuter rail; leaders who have the energy and skills to revitalize the city; and the CitySquare project. Providence was not included in either Lincoln Institute report, but its revitalization efforts have been heralded by organizations from the American Planning Association to The New York Times.

Although this momentum is promising, climate change complicates everything. In the Northeast, climate change is associated with more frequent extreme weather events including heavy rainfall and flooding, droughts, warmer air and water temperatures, changing circulation patterns in the ocean (and related impacts on weather and fisheries), and sea-level rise. Providence is positioned to see flooding and damage from more intense Nor’easters and hurricanes that slam into its shores; a climate report prepared in Worcester nods to predicted impacts including “increased temperatures, more extreme heat days, and changing precipitation patterns.”

“Some degree of climate change is inevitable—there’s literally nothing we can do about it now,” said Edward R. Carr, professor of international development, community, and environment at Clark University in Worcester. “The question is, how much can we deal with it, and what is that going to look like.”

Where Revitalization and Preparedness Meet

“The most fundamental rationale for thinking about green infrastructure is to come up with uses for a massive accumulation of vacant lots, so it will not be a blight and hopefully will [have] a positive effect on the neighborhood,” said Alan Mallach. “Historically, a lot of people had the theory that a vacant lot was worthless unless you built something on it. But that’s changing. There are a number of ways you can take a vacant lot and make it valuable to the community, whether for recreation, to produce fresh food, address sewer overflow. There are ways to address vacant lots that don’t require building new housing or office buildings.”

As legacy cities assess such land use opportunities, they sometimes lack the political or economic power to engineer effective solutions. But there’s one area in which legacy cities have an advantage: They are seeking to reinvent themselves as healthier, more appealing places to live, so they are often more willing to embrace novel and creative projects. This will be helpful in the era of climate change, says Amy Cotter, associate director of Urban Programs at the Lincoln Institute.

“If you think about ways we could prepare legacy cities to play key roles in a future where climate change is affecting large population centers, green infrastructure could be both a revitalization strategy and a climate preparedness strategy,” said Cotter. “It can also help places revitalize and deal with what otherwise would be the blight of vacant property.”

Larger legacy cities across the country have embraced a suite of options with these goals in mind. In Detroit, a comprehensive green infrastructure effort has led to a citywide sprouting of green roofs, rain gardens, and a “green alley” program in which native plants and permeable pavers replace urban debris and concrete in previously neglected alleyways. In Cleveland, the regional sewer district manages a green infrastructure grants program, and ambitious plans are coming together for a park that will occupy 20 acres of formerly industrial waterfront along the Cuyahoga River. Philadelphia is investing approximately $2.4 billion in public funds over 25 years to do everything from provide rain barrels to create urban wetlands in order to reduce combined sewer overflow.

Smaller legacy cities with populations under 200,000 don’t always garner headlines, or have the resources and capacity to undertake such large projects, but many are making similar efforts. Worcester and Providence demonstrate how smaller legacy cities—one coastal, one inland—are relying on green infrastructure to help them rebound from the challenges of the last century and prepare for the uncertainties of the decades ahead.

“Not only does green infrastructure act as an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional stormwater systems, it can help protect us from climate impacts like urban heat island and coastal erosion, and be used in streetscape design to make our roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians,” said Leah Bamberger, the city of Providence’s director of sustainability. “Providence is a forward-thinking city, and green infrastructure is an opportunity to invest in green jobs while building a healthier, thriving community.”

Finding Stormwater Solutions

In the last 80 years, Rhode Island and southern New England have experienced a doubling of flood frequency and an increase in the magnitude of flood events, according to the report Resilient Rhody: An Actionable Vision for Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change in Rhode Island (State of Rhode Island 2018).

Unfortunately, the region’s infrastructure isn’t up to the challenge.

“Much of the state’s stormwater infrastructure was built at least 75 years ago and was designed for less intense storms,” the Resilient Rhody report says. “Climate change further challenges the capacity and performance of these drainage systems.”

Carr says the same is true of the Worcester area, noting that the “infrastructure here is simply not built to handle . . . what is becoming normal.”

“Climate adaptation is very specific to place,” says Ryan of the University of Massachusetts, who coedited Planning for Climate Change: A Reader in Green Infrastructure and Sustainable Design for Resilient Cities, published by Routledge. “For these particular cities, and for any legacy city, the question is how do they accommodate the extra water that comes with sea-level rise and increased precipitation.” Pointing out that neighborhood development patterns have tended to stem from the historic location of worker housing near riverside mills and factories, Ryan says flooding raises equity issues too: “How do cities protect the vulnerable populations in those low-lying areas?”

With this array of concerns in mind, public and private entities are taking action. The Green Infrastructure Coalition in Rhode Island—made up of more than 40 nonprofit organizations, city planners, architects, elected officials, and others—works to promote green infrastructure projects as one way to reduce stormwater problems such as flooding and pollution.

The coalition hires local crews to install green infrastructure projects, such as a bioswale in a local park, a green roof, or a rain garden, and trains public works employees and other involved parties on maintenance. “It’s small projects right now, but it seems that the need and appetite for this is growing,” said John Berard, Rhode Island state director of Clean Water Action, which acts as the project organizer for the coalition. “We’re seeing it get more and more prevalent as storms get worse, and cities are realizing that stormwater is a really important piece for managing a city effectively.”

Meanwhile, the city of Worcester has put policies in place that help ensure sound stormwater management. The city regulates runoff near wetlands and catch basins that drain directly to wetlands or water resource areas.

Additionally, all development and redevelopment must have no net increase in runoff rates, often leading to on-site stormwater management systems for large developments.

The city also aggressively protects land within its watershed to improve the quality of its drinking water and offset some of the land lost to development, according to Phil Guerin, director of water and sewer operations for the city.

But Guerin noted that the built-up nature of Worcester, as well as the geology of the city, makes it difficult to decrease the amount of impervious surfaces. “There are lots of areas with shallow bedrock, a shallow water table, and it’s a pretty built-up city,” Guerin said.

Combating the Urban Heat Island Effect

A few years ago, scientists from NASA set out to understand the difference between surface temperatures in the cities of the Northeast and surrounding rural areas. Their research revealed that surface temperatures in the cities were an average of 13 to 16 degrees hotter than surrounding areas over a three-year period. In Providence, surface temperatures are about 21.9 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside (NASA 2010). The compact size of Providence contributed to this heat island effect, which is caused by buildings retaining heat and by urban infrastructure such as pavement.

When it comes to combating the heat island effect, the answer is clear, says Carr of Clark University: “Trees, trees, trees. There are tons of studies that urban tree cover makes a tremendous difference in lowering temperatures, improving air quality, and—to some extent—helping with flooding.”

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a healthy, 100-foot-tall tree can take 11,000 gallons of water from the soil and release it into the air again in a single growing season.

In 1907, the city of Providence recorded approximately 50,000 street trees, according to the local nonprofit Providence Neighborhood Planting Program (PNPP). The city currently has just half that amount—approximately 25,500 street trees—according to the sustainability dashboard on the City of Providence Sustainability website. A citywide tree inventory is underway.

In its Trees 2020 plan, Providence aims to increase the tree canopy 30 percent by 2020 and plant 200 trees annually. The city has partnered with PNPP, offering grants for tree planting and providing the curb cuts, tree pit, and trees for free. In addition, PNPP and the city offer the Providence Citizen Foresters program, which provides technical training focused on the care of young urban trees. PNPP has cofunded the planting of more than 13,000 street trees with more than 620 neighborhood groups since 1989.

“If people are engaged and want the tree, they’re more likely to care for it and nurture it,” said Bamberger. “You can plant the trees all day long, but if there’s no one there to care for them and nurture them, they’re not going to last long.”

Ryan echoes that sentiment, drawing from research he has been involved with on community gardens in Boston and Providence. “You often have outside groups come to cities and neighborhoods saying how wonderful green infrastructure is, but unless a community wants it— and wants to maintain it—it doesn’t sustain itself so well over time,” he says. “Green infrastructure needs to be both top-down and bottom-up. A bottom-up approach seems to have longer-term impact in terms of stewardship and making projects work.”

In Worcester, a robust tree-planting effort grew into a statewide success story. In 2008, the discovery of the invasive Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) in Worcester led to a massive eradication effort that would fell 35,000 trees in a 110-square-mile quarantine area in the city and adjacent towns. (Four years later, students at Clark University began studying the impact of the tree loss, noting that the heat island effect had increased in a neighborhood that had lost its trees, as did heating and air conditioning bills.)

An ambitious replanting effort known as the Worcester Tree Initiative kicked off in 2009, with the city and state Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) partnering to plant 30,000 trees in just five years in private yards, in parks, and along streets. The program recruits neighborhood tree stewards to care for and monitor the trees, and runs a Young Adult Forester program in the summer for at-risk youth.

The partnership has been so successful that the DCR has expanded it to other cities in Massachusetts through its Greening the Gateway Cities Initiative. This program is concentrated in areas within cities with lower tree canopy, older housing, and a larger renter population. DCR works with local nonprofits and hires local crews to plant trees for environmental benefits and energy efficiency. The program is currently active in Brockton, Chelsea, Chicopee, Fall River, Haverhill, Holyoke, Lawrence, Leominster, Lynn, New Bedford, Pittsfield, Quincy, Revere, and Springfield.

“The model was established in ALB areas and is now a successful model across the state,” said Ken Gooch, director of the DCR’s Forest Health Program. “We’ve planted thousands and thousands of trees.”

Facing Challenges

The city of Worcester’s zoning ordinance requires that trees be planted around the perimeter of parking areas abutting a street, park, or residential property and serving more than three residential dwellings. Additionally, interior tree plantings are required in surface lots with more than 16 spaces and the state’s Complete Streets Policy, enacted in March 2018, specifically calls out trees as an important part of the public street, noted Stephen Rolle, assistant chief development officer for the city.

But some neighborhoods are less amenable to trees, as utilities, power lines, and sidewalks on narrow streets compete for space. There are simply fewer places to plant trees in built-up cities, particularly the large shade trees providing the most environmental benefits. Urban rain gardens or bioswales often have to compete for space with utilities and parking areas too.

“There is valuable paved space downtown, and people are hesitant to let that parking space go to put in bioswales or street trees,” said Berard of the Green Infrastructure Coalition.

Rolle notes another challenge: low-intensity development is sometimes perceived as more expensive, because of installation costs or maintenance requirements. But “there’s quite a bit of evidence suggesting that the benefits of such improvements overall outweigh the costs,” he says. “It can be cheaper to pave it, but that doesn’t make it the right choice.”

Part of the Green Infrastructure Coalition’s advocacy includes support for a stormwater enterprise fund with a utility fee. Property owners pay into this fund based on the amount of impervious surface on their land, with the funds dedicated to projects including green infrastructure. But Berard admitted it’s a tough sell. “As a policy solution, it’s pretty much accepted to be the best way to fund programs,” he said. “But it’s politically unpalatable.”

As the two cities look ahead, more plans are taking shape. Worcester is engaged in a citywide master plan process that will consider adaptations to climate change. The city also received a $100,000 grant in 2018 to prepare a citywide climate change vulnerability assessment.

The Water and Sewer department is also developing a long-term plan to prioritize investments in water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure over the next 50 years, giving the department an opportunity to look at increasing stormwater capability through green infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the city of Providence has been updating its Hazard Mitigation Plan, with a major focus on climate preparedness, said Bamberger. As climate change bears down, she says, thinking ahead and planting the seeds for a greener city will be the key to vitality.

 “If you only have a day to prepare, you have [fewer] options . . . You may only get to batten down the hatches,” Bamberger said. “We do have some time to think strategically as to how we need to respond to these impacts. Integrating nature into urban design and supporting the natural systems we depend on is critical to creating a climate-resilient city.”

This article was published in the April 2019 print issue of Land Lines with the title “Great Adaptations: How Two Smaller Legacy Cities Are Embracing Green Infrastructure.”

Cyrus Moulton is a reporter for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, where he covers urban and environmental issues, health, utilities, and transportation.

Photograph: Cars navigate heavy flooding under an aging Providence & Worcester Railroad bridge in Worcester, July 2018. Credit: Matthew Healey

References

City of Providence. “Sustainability Dashboard.” Open Data Portal. https://performance.providenceri.gov/stat/goals/r6yh-954f.

Hollingsworth, Torey, and Alison Goebel. 2017. Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Strategies for Postindustrial Success from Gary to Lowell. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/revitalizing-americas-smaller-legacy-cities.

Mallach, Alan, and Lavea Brachman. 2013. Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/regenerating-americas-legacy-cities.

State of Rhode Island. 2018. Resilient Rhody: An Actionable Vision for Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change in Rhode Island. Providence, RI: State of Rhode Island (July 2). http://climatechange.ri.gov/documents/resilientrhody18.pdf.

Voiland, Adam. 2010. “Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast.” Washington, DC: NASA (December 13). https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html.

Bruce Babbitt ha sido líder en políticas de suelo y agua en el oeste de EE.UU. desde hace casi medio siglo. Fue fiscal general de Arizona entre 1975 y 1978, gobernador de Arizona entre 1978 y 1987 y Secretario del Interior de EE.UU. entre 1993 y 2001. El secretario Babbitt, que da nombre al Centro Babbitt para Políticas de Suelo y Agua, también participó en la junta de directores del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo entre 2009 y 2017. Uno de sus cuantiosos logros fue promulgar la Ley de Administración de Aguas Subterráneas de Arizona durante su mandato como gobernador. En los últimos dos años, se desempeñó como asesor para Jerry Brown, gobernador de California, en asuntos hídricos. Para esta edición especial de Land Lines, habló con el Dr. Jim Holway, director del Centro Babbitt. En el sitio web del Instituto Lincoln se encuentran disponibles videos con extractos de la conversación.

Jim Holway: Bruce, desde su punto de vista, ¿cuál es la importancia del río Colorado?

Bruce Babbitt: Bueno, John Wesley Powell respondió esa pregunta hace casi 150 años. Vivimos en un territorio con precipitaciones escasas, y a nuestros ríos no baja suficiente agua. La demanda siempre superará a la oferta. Y el modo en que captamos eso como cultura política es un poco la gran realidad del río Colorado. Históricamente, el agua se destinaba, principalmente, a la agricultura, pero las exigencias urbanas crecen cada vez más, debido al aumento de la población. Se necesitará mucha imaginación e innovación en el uso de este río para lograr el crecimiento y el progreso del oeste.

JH: ¿Cuál es el papel del río en la economía y la calidad de vida del sudoeste del país?

BB: Sin el río Colorado, esta sería una tierra muy vacía. Esa es la realidad. Hemos poblado y fundado este territorio en base a la noción de “constrúyelo y el agua vendrá”. Y, como sabe, es un rasgo espectacular de nuestra historia. Está como incorporado a nuestra visión del oeste como una tierra de infinitas oportunidades. Pero ahora estamos descubriendo los límites. Las necesidades agrícolas y urbanas están llegando al conflicto. Además, necesitamos tener en cuenta los valores medioambientales y ecológicos que se desatendieron por mucho tiempo y que suman tanto a la calidad de vida y al atractivo del oeste estadounidense.

JH: ¿Cuál es el estado del río hoy, y cómo cambió desde que era Secretario del Interior?

BB: Cuando fui a Washington en 1993 para ser Secretario del Interior, los lagos Powell y Mead estaban desbordados, y el río Colorado no parecía ser una preocupación inmediata. A nuestra percepción contribuyó el hecho de que este era un sistema con exceso de posibilidades. Hoy, apenas 25 años después, el lago Mead se está acercando a ser un charco muerto (dead pool), al punto de que ya no puede liberar agua ni generar energía. Esta transición, que no anticipamos ni planificamos, es un duro recordatorio de la necesidad de planificar un amplio abanico de escenarios para el uso del suelo y el agua.
 
JH: Según su opinión, ¿cuáles son los desafíos más grandes del río Colorado que debemos abordar?

BB: El primero es reconocer que vivimos en un desierto con fluctuaciones climáticas inmensas y rápidas. A lo largo del s. XX, construimos el gran sistema de embalses para almacenar agua frente a estas fluctuaciones. Pero nuestras suposiciones acerca del cambio climático y el crecimiento de la población estaban muy erradas. Hoy, tomamos más de 1,2 kilómetro cúbico del almacenamiento en embalses más de lo que ingresa en promedio al año. Y, por supuesto, eso no puede seguir así. Ahora debemos apuntar a establecer el equilibrio en toda la cuenca. Para alcanzar ese equilibrio, tendremos que realizar ajustes en cada usuario del agua: agrícolas, municipales, generación de energía y usos medioambientales. Y, por supuesto, esto no puede hacerse de a poco, a medida que se necesita; deberemos inventar procesos nuevos de participación del público y ajustes compartidos en cada pueblo, ciudad y granja de la cuenca.

JH: ¿Qué estructuras de política y administración necesitamos para avanzar hacia un enfoque más equilibrado?

BB: En el oeste, conectar e integrar el uso del suelo y el agua es una idea relativamente nueva. El uso del agua, al igual que el del suelo y la zonificación, solía ser un asunto local, con poca coordinación o indicaciones a nivel estatal o interestatal. Pero el agua es un recurso en común; si el desarrollo se da de forma local, proyecto por proyecto, sin pensar en el abastecimiento regional y las restricciones de demandas, es inevitable que se llegue a las crisis y la degradación del medioambiente que vemos hoy. La pregunta es cómo cambiarlo.

JH: Según su opinión, ¿cuáles son los desafíos de políticas o políticos más difíciles?

BB: Acercarse a una planificación más proactiva será un desafío político y social. No se puede lograr emitiendo reglamentaciones desde arriba, Washington, Phoenix o Denver. Necesitamos comenzar a nivel personal y movernos de abajo hacia arriba. Comenzar con una ética personal renovada de conservación, involucrar a las comunidades en los programas de eficiencia y reutilización, integrar el agua al uso local del suelo y la zonificación, y reproducir las historias de éxito locales en las políticas estatales y luego al nivel de toda la cuenca.

JH: ¿Los estados son la clave para esta visión más grande, de todo el sistema? ¿O se trata de un asunto federal?

BB: Como sabe, algo destacable del río Colorado es que es la única cuenca fluvial de los Estados Unidos administrada y operada bajo la dirección del gobierno federal. En 1963, después de casi un siglo de guerras entre los estados de la cuenca, la Corte Suprema intervino, dictó una fórmula para compartir el agua y luego designó al Secretario del Interior para la administración del río y sus embalses. En ese momento, muchos habitantes del oeste sintieron que la asignación de ese cargo sería un desastre. De hecho, ha funcionado muy bien en su mayor parte porque los distintos secretarios utilizaron su poder con buen juicio, alentaron a los estados a cooperar entre sí e intervinieron solo como último recurso cuando estos no se ponían de acuerdo. Eso representó un estímulo y una amenaza, y acomodó las piezas para que los estados se unieran.

JH: Cuando usted era Secretario del Interior, utilizaba un enfoque de “hablar suave, pero llevar un palo grande”. ¿Es optimista con respecto al papel que cumplen los estados? ¿O siente que necesitan más estímulo para progresar?

BB: Aunque este sistema de administración federal y estatal funcionó bien hasta ahora, necesita mejorar. Un ejemplo es la negociación actual entre el Departamento del Interior y los estados sobre los déficits en el lago Mead. Esas conversaciones avanzaron a los tropezones, y las proyecciones de escasez se revisan constantemente. Es notable que ni siquiera haya una organización interestatal vigente que pueda guiar las labores de recopilación de datos, investigación y planificación. Tendremos que encontrar una forma de ser más proactivos, y no esperar hasta último momento. Tendremos que adelantarnos a varios momentos antes y anticipar las posibles situaciones que encontraremos en la próxima década, en las próximas dos o tres décadas.

JH: En relación con repensar los modelos antiguos, ¿cuáles son las formas más efectivas de unir la planificación local de suelo y agua con la gestión?

BB: Debemos idear nuevos medios de planificación en cada uno de los estados de la cuenca. Podemos aprender mucho de la planificación de uso del suelo y zonificación tradicionales, que ahora se pueden conectar e integrar con la planificación para el uso del agua. Llamémoslo planificación de uso de suelo-agua. Podemos comenzar con ejemplos locales de eficiencia en el uso del agua y conservación, que luego se deberían extender a labores de planificación más amplias, como la legislación para el “suministro de agua asegurado” de Arizona, una ley muy básica, pero innovadora; para simplificarlo, antes de clavar una pala en el suelo, nos tienen que demostrar qué saldrá de los grifos en los próximos 100 años . . . Al ascender en la escala de administración del agua y en las escalas de gobierno municipal, de condado, estatal, multiestatal y federal, es importante salir y observar ejemplos buenos, como ese.

JH: Cuando era gobernador de Arizona, lideró labores para promulgar la Ley de Administración de Aguas Subterráneas de 1980. ¿Le parece que el debate sobre los problemas hídricos rurales ha cambiado desde entonces?

BB: No cambió. El ejemplo de Arizona ilustra la necesidad de establecer procesos de planificación y luego seguir esforzándose, todos los años, por mejorar y expandir esa aplicación. La Ley de Administración de Aguas Subterráneas de 1980 revolucionó la administración del agua en condados urbanos que incluyen a Phoenix y Tucson. Sin embargo, en los cerca de 35 años que pasaron, la Ley no se extendió a las zonas rurales del estado, que ahora encuentran los mismos problemas de desarrollo rápido y demanda. El liderazgo político importa, y no ha habido mucho en Arizona y en todo el oeste del país.

JH: Fue gobernador de Arizona y Secretario del Interior de EE.UU. Con la ventaja de poder mirar atrás, ¿hay cosas esenciales que habría hecho de otro modo?

BB: Bueno, en realidad la posición de uno depende de dónde uno está sentado. No sería injusto repasar mis épocas de funcionario público y decir: “¿Pero él no era un tipo orientado a los derechos del estado, que daba todos esos discursos sobre la burocracia malvada de Washington?”, y luego toman mis discursos de 20 años después y tiendo a enfocarlos hacia el otro lado. El hecho es que no es ni una cosa ni la otra; debemos trabajar en conjunto en todos los niveles del gobierno, desde lo más local hasta los Capitolios estatales y Washington.

Al mirar atrás, sé que a veces subestimé la importancia de la promoción de políticas y enlaces directos con los votantes. En el pasado, a veces fui impaciente, cuando deseaba entrar en acción en vez de tomarme el tiempo de escuchar en foros públicos. Creo que, si pudiera volver en el tiempo, dedicaría más tiempo a asociaciones federales y estatales, y también pasaría mucho más tiempo pensando en esos foros públicos.

JH: ¿De dónde tiene que venir el liderazgo para afrontar los desafíos que identificó?

BB: Los estadounidenses siempre fueron escépticos respecto del gobierno, y en realidad de eso se trata la Constitución: límites adecuados para el gobierno. A lo largo de nuestra historia, tuvimos una tendencia a ser pragmáticos, optimistas y de mente abierta sobre lo que se debe hacer. Somos perfectamente capaces de decir que no queremos al gobierno federal, y luego en la misma oración exigir ayuda federal.

En este momento, presenciamos prácticamente un colapso de la asociación tradicional entre gobierno federal y estatal, dado que el primero recae en una presencia idiosincrática e impredecible en el oeste. La verdad, es lamentable. Ya hemos pasado por estos períodos en la historia del país. Y superaremos este.

Este colapso a nivel nacional se contrarresta con interés y participación renovados por parte del gobierno local. La historia estadounidense nos instruye una vez más: cuando el gobierno nacional se estanca, suele venir una renovación de base en todo el territorio. Y esa es una gran oportunidad para que todos revitalicemos la planificación, desde la base hacia arriba.

JH: ¿Qué lo llevó a dar su nombre al Centro Babbitt para Políticas de Suelo y Agua?

BB: Me formé como geólogo y tiendo a afrontar los problemas en términos lineales y formulados. Cuando estuve en la junta del Instituto Lincoln, pude comprender muchísimo mejor cómo están interconectados el uso del suelo y el agua con la economía, y los aspectos sociales y políticos del uso del suelo. Lincoln posee un historial vasto e impactante en la unión de investigaciones profundas e impulsadas por datos, múltiples disciplinas académicas y profesionales del mundo real para ofrecer nuevas perspectivas acerca de cómo vivimos y prosperamos en el territorio. Si mi presencia y mi experiencia pueden agregar aunque sea un poco a la misión de Lincoln, me entusiasma seguir aprendiendo y aportando.

JH: Dado que posee amplia experiencia internacional, ¿qué lecciones de otros lugares cree que el Centro Babbitt y otros podrían tomar para la cuenca del río Colorado?

BB: Al principio, David Lincoln y su familia decidieron extender el trabajo del Instituto Lincoln a dos lugares que siempre despertaron un interés especial en mí: China y América Latina. Ambas regiones se enfrentan a problemas hídricos complejos, agudizados por el inicio del calentamiento global; de ellos, podemos aprender y a ellos podemos aportar con nuestra propia experiencia. El cambio climático se acelera más en los polos, en los trópicos y cerca de ellos. Entonces, es como si tuviéramos una proyección avanzada, en un contexto diferente, del tipo de cosas con las que tendremos que lidiar en la cuenca del río Colorado.

JH: ¿Qué hace ahora? ¿Cuáles son sus próximos pasos?

BB: Bueno, en cierto punto es probable que regrese a Brasil y la cuenca del Amazonas; allí, estoy involucrado en causas de conservación desde hace un tiempo. Pero aquí, en el oeste, a quienes estamos obsesionados con el agua nos conocen como “búfalos de agua”. Y los búfalos acuáticos nunca se alejan demasiado del bebedero; entonces, es probable que me puedan ver por el oeste. Seguiré aprendiendo y pensando en nuestro futuro en esta tierra.

Jim Holway es el director del Centro Babbitt para Políticas de Suelo y Agua.

Fotografía: Bruce Babbitt. Crédito: Gisele Grayson, NPR

En la ciudad desértica de Tucson, Arizona, el promedio anual de precipitaciones es de apenas 305 milímetros. Pero cuando la lluvia cae, suele hacerlo en forma de diluvios torrenciales que causan inundaciones perjudiciales en toda la ciudad. Este puede ser un desafío irónico para Tucson y el área más amplia circundante, el condado de Pima, dado que pertenece a una región mucho más grande que se esfuerza por garantizar que haya y siga habiendo suficiente agua en los momentos de sequía implacable.

Estos desafíos diferentes de administración del agua, demasiada y muy poca, se pueden afrontar con un uso del suelo y decisiones de infraestructura conscientes. Por supuesto, al tomar estas decisiones, es útil contar con datos de mapeo precisos. Por eso, los funcionarios del condado de Pima trabajan junto con el Centro Babbitt para Políticas de Suelo y Agua, del Instituto Lincoln, y otros socios importantes para guiar el uso de algunas de las herramientas de mapeo y análisis de datos más avanzadas del mercado.

El Centro Babbitt (fundado en 2017 con la misión de ofrecer investigaciones sobre el uso del suelo, capacitación e innovación a comunidades de la cuenca del río Colorado) considera que la asociación es un paso inicial para explorar cómo se puede utilizar esa tecnología en el esfuerzo por integrar la administración del uso del suelo y el agua en toda la región.

La tecnología en sí se originó al otro lado del país, en el Centro de Innovación para la Conservación (CIC) de Chesapeake Conservancy, en Maryland, pieza fundamental en la limpieza de la Bahía de Chesapeake, que poseía un nivel de contaminación notorio. En palabras mucho más simples: el CIC diseñó algoritmos de análisis de imágenes que ofrecen datos de imágenes sobre la superficie del planeta notoriamente más granulados. La tecnología permitió avanzar de una resolución que permitía observar y clasificar la tierra en secciones de 30 metros cuadrados a una que puede hacerlo en 1 metro cuadrado.

Jeffrey Allenby, director de tecnología de la conservación en Conservancy, explica que, por supuesto, los detalles son un poco más complicados. Indica que la nueva tecnología aborda un desafío histórico: el balance entre la resolución y el costo que implica compilar las imágenes. Hasta hace relativamente poco, se podían compilar datos de 30 metros por satélite cada un par de semanas o incluso días. O bien se podían obtener datos más granulados por avión, pero a un costo tan alto que solo valía la pena hacerlo cada algunos años, como mucho, lo cual implicaba que estuvieran menos actualizados.

Allenby dice que están cambiando la tecnología de las cámaras y la naturaleza de los satélites que se utilizan para implementarla. En vez de lanzar un satélite supercostoso construido para durar décadas, las empresas más nuevas con las cuales trabaja el CIC (Allenby menciona a Planet Labs y DigitalGlobe) utilizan distintos enfoques. Son satélites “más pequeños y reemplazables”, que pretenden durar solo un par de años y luego se queman en la atmósfera, y se pueden equipar con la última tecnología en cámaras. Se despliegan en una especie de red, ofrecen cobertura en casi todo el planeta y generan nuevos datos de imágenes de forma casi constante.

Las empresas tecnológicas desarrollaron este modelo para atender a la demanda comercial y de inversores de contar con la información más reciente; en teoría, registrar la cantidad de autos en estacionamientos de tiendas departamentales puede ser un indicador económico valioso. Los planificadores de uso del suelo no necesitan imágenes tan cercanas al tiempo real. Pero Allenby dice que el CIC empezó a preguntar a las empresas tecnológicas: “¿Qué hacen con las imágenes que tienen dos semanas?”. Son menos costosas, pero mucho mejores de lo que había disponible antes. Las imágenes resultantes se interpretan en computadoras que las clasifican por tipo: suelo irrigado, lecho rocoso, pastizales, etc. Hacer eso en un rango de 30 metros cuadrados implicaba mucho compromiso e imprecisión; en un rango de un metro es otra historia.

Allenby define el objetivo como “modelar cómo se mueve el agua en un territorio” al combinar los datos con otros recursos, de los cuales el más notable son los datos de elevación LIDAR (detección por luz y distancia). Esos son los ingredientes esenciales para los proyectos sobre datos de uso del suelo, a los cuales se incorporan otros, como eficiencia de reducción o índices de carga de distintas coberturas, según el proyecto. Allenby indica: “Estamos armando nuevas recetas”. En la Bahía de Chesapeake, esas recetas pretenden ayudar a administrar la calidad del agua. Si se puede determinar dónde se concentra el agua y, digamos, dónde incorpora nitrógeno, se puede deducir el punto más rentable para plantar árboles o instalar un amortiguador de corriente y así reducir dicha carga de nitrógeno (ver “Conservación de precisión”, Land Lines de octubre de 2016).

En la cuenca del río Colorado, los desafíos actuales más urgentes sobre la administración del agua tienen que ver con la cantidad. Dado que la política hídrica se debate en su mayor medida a nivel local, a pesar de que los problemas subyacentes de uso del suelo tienen implicancias en muchos estados, el Centro Babbitt sirve como recurso en una región amplia. Paula Randolph, directora adjunta del Centro Babbitt, dice que hoy hay más conciencia sobre la administración del agua entre los gestores de políticas municipales y de condados. “La gente quiere pensar sobre estos problemas y se da cuenta de que no tiene suficiente información”.

Con esto, volvemos al condado de Pima. Si bien se encuentra alejado de la cuenca, ostenta dos características por las cuales es un buen lugar para evaluar cómo se puede aplicar en el oeste de EE.UU. el uso de datos de mapeo de precisión: geografía parecida a una cuenca y líderes municipales proactivos. Cuando el gerente de tecnología de la Asociación de Gobiernos de Pima vio a Allenby hablar sobre las ventajas de su trabajo en la zona este, se comunicó con el CIC para hablar de las posibilidades en el oeste. El proyecto resultante se inició hace ya un año, y hay varios socios en el equipo. El grupo está mapeando una zona de 9.800 kilómetros cuadrados, y los datos de código abierto se hospedan en el sitio web del Distrito para el Control Regional ante Inundaciones de Pima; así, otros agentes del condado pueden acceder a ellos y usarlos.

Randolph destaca que, a grandes rasgos, el proceso requirió algo de trabajo. Los datos satelitales recopilados en el oeste muestran formas distintas a las de las imágenes de la costa este a las cuales estaba acostumbrado el sofisticado software de Chesapeake, y esto hizo que fueran necesarios algunos ajustes, como “enseñarle” al software la diferencia entre un techo de roca del sudoeste y un patio; para la máquina, ambos parecen tierra. “Necesitamos socios humanos para arreglar eso”, indica. “Nos esforzamos por obtener datos para tomar decisiones sobre la gestión de la calidad”.

Dichos perfeccionamientos continúan hoy, pero ya hay resultados precoces en el condado de Pima. Hay datos más claros y precisos sobre la cobertura que ayudan a identificar zonas que necesitan mitigar inundaciones. También resultó útil identificar “focos” donde puede haber efectos peligrosos de isla de calor; allí, se ofreció orientación para tomar medidas de mitigación, como agregar árboles que producen sombra. Estos mapas ofrecen una muestra visual del caudal del agua y el uso del suelo, más efectiva de la que podría brindar un trabajador en el lugar.

Tanto Allenby como Randolph enfatizan el hecho de que esta asociación se encuentra en las primeras etapas de exploración de los usos e impactos potenciales de los datos de mapeo en alta resolución. Randolph destaca que, si bien el Centro Babbitt trabaja en este y otro proyecto piloto en la zona de Denver, se espera que los resultados contribuyan a un diálogo mundial sobre los experimentos en la administración del agua. 

Y Allenby insinúa que sería ideal que las “recetas” ideadas por los tecnólogos, gestores de políticas y planificadores ayudaran a realizar una evaluación más precisa de la eficiencia y el impacto de los distintos proyectos para el uso del suelo. Él espera que esto conduzca al resultado más importante de todos: “Tomar mejores decisiones”.

El Instituto Lincoln ofreció ayuda económica ocasional al CIC para proyectos relacionados con mapeo y datos.

Rob Walker (robwalker.net) es periodista y escribe sobre diseño, tecnología y otros temas. Su libro The Art of Noticing (El arte de darse cuenta) se publicará en mayo de 2019.

Imagen: Los datos de cobertura terrestre de alta resolución ofrecen una mirada más cercana a Tucson, Arizona. Crédito: Centro de Innovación para la Conservación

Last fall, Las Vegas completed a yearlong pilot of the nation’s first public self-driving shuttle. Over the course of the experiment, more than 32,000 people hopped aboard a blue electric minibus bearing the slogans, “The future is here” and “Look ma no driver.” Designed and built by French start-up Navya and operated by Keolis North America, the eight-passenger shuttle took riders on a 0.6-mile loop through the downtown area. A human operator rode along, poised to override vehicle functions in an emergency using a converted Xbox controller.

Las Vegas partnered with the regional transit agency and AAA to run the pilot, which was deemed a success. Now accelerating its commitment to autonomous vehicles (AVs), the city is planning for a second shuttle route and a “robotaxi” service by Keolis and Navya. And in December, the city and transit agency won a $5.3 million grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation for a project called GoMed. Slated to begin in late 2019, GoMed will provide four autonomous electric shuttles on a four-mile route between downtown and the Las Vegas Medical District. That district includes four hospitals and the University of Nevada at Las Vegas School of Medicine campus, which serves 200,000 patients annually and will employ 6,000 people by 2020. GoMed will also feature pedestrian safety devices and 23 smart transit shelters with Wi-Fi, information on shuttle arrival times and occupancy, and wayfinding kiosks.

When it comes to AVs, Las Vegas appears to be all in—but planning for the impacts of rapidly emerging technology can be complicated. In a Big City Planning Directors Institute session on AVs hosted last fall by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the American Planning Association (APA), and the Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD), Las Vegas Planning Director Robert Summerfield acknowledged that it is challenging to regulate new mobilities and incorporate them into the urban fabric. This is especially true now, he says, when leaders in Las Vegas are juggling a citywide master planning process, form-based code regulations, thoroughfare standards, transit system changes, and downtown capital projects—all of which could need adjustments as new mobility options become more popular.

It’s an era of contrasts: Public transit is enjoying a surge in metro areas, with expanding light-rail systems in Denver, Los Angeles, and other places, and demand for walkable and bikeable urban spaces is at an all-time high. At the same time, ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft (which are also known as transportation network companies, or TNCs) have actually increased traffic congestion and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). So how do AVs fit into the picture, and what will they mean for cities? How are planning, transportation, and public works departments adjusting to this rapidly changing mobility landscape, and how can they ensure that the built environment will accommodate changes that haven’t yet happened?

At the Planning Directors Institute, Andres Sevtsuk, assistant professor of urban planning and director of the City Form Lab at the Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD), illustrated the “totally transformative” nature of AVs with an example from the past: When the Model T was introduced, he said, no one could have predicted that we would have 41,000 miles of interstate highways across the United States decades later. It’s just as difficult to predict the impact of AVs.

With so much buzz and uncertainty, the art appears to lie, at this point, not in finessing the AV future, but in managing the next few years of transition. Cars notoriously reshaped our cities in the twentieth century—the question is how AVs will reshape them in the twenty-first.

Transformative Technology

“We know from our work with big city planning directors across the country that autonomous vehicles are seen as a disruptive technology that will require preparing for a range of impacts—both positive and negative—related to transportation systems and travel modes, land use and urban design, and access for low-income and underserved communities,” says Armando Carbonell, chair of Planning and Urban Form at the Lincoln Institute. Carbonell notes that these topics will be featured in a panel at APA’s 2019 National Planning Conference in San Francisco, with speakers including Los Angeles Planning Director Vince Bertoni and New York City Planning Director Anita Laremont, as well as experts from the fall Planning Directors Institute.

Many other organizations are thinking through the impacts of AVs, including Bloomberg Philanthropies and The Aspen Institute, which issued a joint report on the topic. “Automation is changing the automobile, mostly in ways that will help cities,” notes the report (Bloomberg 2017). “Cities have long struggled with the car’s demands for space. But AVs can be designed for many more forms and functions, creating new opportunities to right-size vehicles for urban use.” While most AV pilots in the last decade focused on high-speed highways, “the AV’s future is in cities, where its biggest market demographics are concentrated,” the report notes.

This shift seems to align with the values of urban-dwellers, especially younger generations; in a recent consumer survey by Arity, a data start-up launched by Allstate, 59 percent of respondents between 22 and 37 years old say they’d rather spend time doing more productive tasks than driving, 51 percent don’t think owning a car is worth the investment, and 45 percent regularly use ride-hailing services (Arity 2018).

“AVs are coming just as our demographics and economy are very pro-urban for the next 20 years,” says David Dixon, Urban Places Planning and Urban Design Leader at the global design and engineering firm Stantec, who also presented at the Planning Directors Institute. “Change will come much faster in urban centers than in suburbs or rural areas because of a critical mass that allows for shared vehicles.”

That change is beginning to occur. After a decade of research and development, tech companies and car manufacturers (also known as OEMs, or original equipment manufacturers) are readying self-driving vehicles for market at a remarkable pace, with fully autonomous vehicles scheduled to roll out this year in pilot programs across the United States. Small self-driving shuttle buses like the one in Las Vegas have appeared in pilot programs on city streets across the U.S., including Providence, Rhode Island, and Columbus, Ohio, and single-occupant AVs have been tested in many cities from Boston to San Jose. Half of America’s largest cities are preparing for self-driving vehicles in their long-range transportation plans, according to a National League of Cities report on autonomous vehicle pilots, which noted that at least 28 states were introducing legislation to support such AV pilots (Perkins 2018).

More comprehensive testing programs are also underway in cities including Austin and Phoenix. The Austin Transportation Department is testing technology at five intersections that will allow the city’s traffic system to communicate with self-driving cars. Installed over the streets on traffic-light equipment, the technology can inform AVs about when the light is about to turn, if a driver has run a red light, or if pedestrians are present.

The Phoenix metro area also has evolved as an AV-testing hub for tech companies and OEMs thanks to its road infrastructure, weather, cross-border supply chain, favorable business climate, and access to tech talent. The Phoenix metro area boasts 15 companies that are innovating and testing driverless vehicles and related technology, according to the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, which says the AV industry will bring Arizona 2,000-plus jobs and $700 million in capital investment by 2020.

Waymo, launched by Google, has tested vehicles in autonomous mode for over 10 million miles on public roads in 25 cities across the U.S., in various conditions from sunny California to snowy Michigan and on the high-speed roads around Phoenix. A test group of 400 “early rider” volunteers have been riding Waymo’s Chrysler Pacifica minivans, modified and equipped with safety drivers, for more than a year in the Phoenix suburbs of Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, and Tempe. (In 2018, Tempe was the site of the first pedestrian fatality caused by an AV. Uber, which had been testing the vehicle, temporarily suspended its AV operations.)

In October 2018, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey announced the creation of a public-private enterprise to pave the way for self-driving vehicles. The state has pledged $1.5 million for the project, the Institute for Automated Mobility, a consortium including Intel, researchers from Arizona State University, University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University, and state transportation, safety, and commerce agencies. The institute will prepare for the expansion of AV technology in Arizona and nationwide, with a focus on liability, regulatory, and safety implications.

At least three dozen companies besides Intel, Uber, and Waymo are involved in developing or testing AVs, including Audi, BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Jaguar, Lyft, Tesla, Volkswagen, and Volvo. While no fully autonomous vehicles are available to consumers yet, the current cost of a personal AV “hardware and software package” would add $70,000 to $200,000 to the base price of a vehicle, according to various estimates; those figures are expected to come down dramatically, to closer to $5,000 to $15,000, as the technology evolves and is adopted more widely.

Planning for the Unplannable

What will this mean for cities? That’s a source of much debate. The “utopian” perspective holds that AVs will usher in a seamless, door-to-door, new-mobility system. Their potential benefits include increased roadway safety—the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 94 percent of serious crashes are due to driver error—as well as potential impacts on urban planning and mobility:

• Roadway efficiency. Because of their tracking features and the elimination of driver error, AVs could improve transportation efficiency by enabling vehicles to travel closer together. This could allow road diets—modifications that lead to narrower or fewer lanes—which would free up roadway strips for fast transit, alternative modes like protected bike lanes, or green infrastructure.
• Improved traffic flow. With sensing technology and artificial intelligence fed by route data, AVs could reduce congestion and improve traffic flow through intersections, reducing travel time.
• Decreased travel costs. AVs could supplant ride-hailing services and decrease the cost of travel by eliminating the need for and cost of private vehicles and drivers. Depending on local policies, they could also be deployed for greater transportation equity in cities, to serve underserved populations including those who are elderly, disabled, poor, or live far from public transit (see sidebar).
• Sustainability. If all AVs were electric, and powered by renewable sources, they could help cities shift away from fossil fuels, reducing urban pollution and carbon footprints.

On the “dystopian” downside, critics says, tightly spaced and continuously cruising AVs could have negative consequences for bicyclists and pedestrians. If they didn’t have to sit behind the wheel, more commuters might opt for a longer commute to a larger house and yard, expanding sprawl, creating more low-density development, increasing municipalities’ costs for providing public services, and inflating land and housing costs in the outer reaches. If AVs were predominantly privately owned passenger vehicles rather than shared shuttles, they would increase congestion. Negative environmental impacts could be compounded by vehicles that were not renewably powered and by the high level of toxicity in manufacturing and disposal of electric batteries. Privately owned AVs could widen the divide between the transportation haves and have-nots.

Utopian, dystopian, or somewhere in between, one thing is certain: The AV future will require adjustments in the way urban planners think. “Because of the significant anticipated impacts of AVs on public infrastructure, land use, and public finance, it is vital that planners actively prepare now for their widespread arrival on city streets,” says Carbonell.

As to how to do that, “most preparation for autonomous vehicles involves good-sense common planning principles,” says David Rouse, research director for the APA. “Cities should start with visioning and goal setting and look at development codes, street regulations, public investment, capital improvements,” and other areas to guide planning. A key question, he suggests, is how do AVs serve those futures?

“The danger now is that the private sector and car manufacturers will drive how this rolls out,” says Rouse. Cities will need help from new types of collaborations and public-private partnerships, he says. “OEMs also need to be brought to the table with cities and the public sector as we figure out how to introduce this technology.”

Rouse suggests planners create a site plan review checklist for AVs and consider ideas contained in Planning for Autonomous Mobility, a 2018 APA report that aims to provide direction for planners as they update their communities’ long-range plans (Crute 2018).

Nico Larco, an architecture professor and director of the Urbanism Next Center at the University of Oregon who presented at the Planning Directors Institute, says cities need to take control of how AVs are introduced and managed before they just appear on the streets, as happened with electric scooters.

Larco advises several steps to ensure control of new mobilities: First, identify and document city priorities. He pointed to Seattle’s New Mobility Playbook, which identifies outcomes, values, and priorities for equity, economic opportunity, and environmental sustainability (SDOT 2017).

Second, “figure out how best to leverage the new technologies to get to the outcomes you want,” he says. “High-density, mixed-use, built-on-transit are key pieces we need to focus on, and the new mobility gives us that ability. Make sure we frame it as, ‘These are the outcomes we want,’ and use new mobility to achieve that.”

Third, define how data will be collected, who owns it, and how it will be shared. “Data is critical to regulating and evaluating mobilities to see whether they are doing what they said they’d do, and the city is getting the outcomes it wants,” he says.

Parking Requirements

Parking is emerging as a critical issue as cities begin to look in-depth at the on-the-ground challenges of AVs. In 2018, Chandler, Arizona—one of the four Phoenix metro cities piloting Waymo shuttles—became the first U.S. city to change its zoning code in anticipation of AVs. The zoning amendments, which went into effect last June, allow for minimum parking requirements for new developments to be reduced by up to 40 percent in exchange for the inclusion of passenger loading zones for shared AVs. One passenger loading zone could achieve a 10 percent reduction in parking, with a cap at 40 percent, depending on the number of zones, land use, and building square footage. Planning staff had two primary objectives: to allow for more flexibility in parking minimums as demand for parking changes, and to promote the creation of loading zones for shared rather than single-passenger vehicles.

“In the future, if AV usage picks up, we see the need for parking to be reduced drastically, and we need to be flexible now,” says David de la Torre, Chandler planning manager and principal planner for the ordinance project. Reducing parking “presents a lot of opportunity for the city to redesign itself to be a better city for residents and businesses,” he says. De la Torre adds that the zoning change is garnering support: at least five developers of multifamily and commercial mixed-use projects are interested in creating TNC-AV passenger zones.

With an estimated 1 billion to 2 billion parking spaces across the U.S., most cities are significantly overparked, says Larco. Seattle, for example, has about 29 parking spaces per acre, more than five times its residential density of 5.7 households per acre, according to a study of parking in five cities by the Research Institute for Housing America (Scharnhorst 2018). Cities including San Francisco and Hartford, Connecticut, have eliminated minimum parking requirements citywide to help speed up development projects and reduce the number of cars on city streets, and other cities have relaxed parking minimums or removed them in transit corridors.  

When the nation shifts to AVs—and most experts agree that the question is indeed when, not if—cities will see “tremendous opportunities because we’ll need less parking,” says Larco. He estimates that, in contrast to cars, which sit idly parked 95 percent of the time, AV shuttles could be in service half-time, depending on their manufacturing and maintenance costs. Others say AV shuttles could run almost continuously except for brief recharging stops. When they’re not chauffeuring riders, AV fleets will still need a place to park at least temporarily—ideally on less expensive land near arterials or freeways with access to a substation to recharge.

AVs also could reduce the cost of urban development. The median cost of building parking in the U.S. is $20,450 per space, according to WGI, a nationwide transportation and civil engineering firm. But that can vary greatly, depending on site factors and regional construction costs. In Denver, underground parking can cost $40,000 per space and aboveground $25,000. In Seattle, structured parking can cost over $100,000 per space. These parking costs, which can amount to 20 percent of a project’s total development costs, could be used to build more affordable housing, public amenities, or to underwrite additional costs for building sustainable buildings. According to the Lincoln Institute’s Carbonell, “One of the greatest potential benefits of the shift away from personal cars could be the freeing up of urban land currently used for parking for redevelopment at greater densities, with more affordable housing and a more livable public realm.”

Goodbye to Garages?

Meanwhile, how do you decide whether to build that new municipal parking garage? Obtaining a parking construction bond now for 30 years could mean losing money. If you still need to build it, how should it differ from the parking garages of past decades?

Some cities and private developers are building parking garages with flexible design that allows for conversion to other uses later, like office space or housing. Global design firm Gensler is helping clients develop buildings with AV-compatible features like the three flexible garage floors in its 84.51° Centre, an eight-story mixed-use office building in Cincinnati. Gensler is designing Giambrocco, a mixed-use project in Denver’s River North (RiNo) district that includes a five-story office building on top of three floors of flexible garage space. Gensler and the Giambrocco developer, Tributary Real Estate, compared the cost of building a standard parking garage with slanted floor plates and ramp parking against a flex design with flat floor plates, 14-foot ceiling heights to accommodate office space, and external speed ramps that can be removed when the space is converted. They determined the flexible garage design would cost 25 percent more for the same 375 parking spaces, a $2.3 million difference on the $80 million project, mostly because of higher construction costs, says Brent Mather, principal and design director for Gensler’s Denver office. The developer determined that it made financial sense to build the flex plan, he says, because “ultimately when the demand for parking is reduced in 10 to 15 years, converting it to office space will provide bigger returns on investment.”

Cities have compelling reasons to build flexible municipal parking garages “because they’re long-term holders of the properties and have public money invested,” says Mather. For maximum adaptability in buildings, he advises, cities should develop only above-ground flexible parking, as underground parking has limited reuse potential beyond concepts such as data centers, gyms, and drop-off areas for buildings serving thousands of people. Airports will have to determine what to do with their massive and revenue-rich parking areas and how to provide more efficient drop-off and pick-up areas, he says, “as part of this paradigm shift.”

“We’re at peak parking in the next year or two,” says Dixon. “Any project that is being planned and permitted today should demonstrate it can increase density for the kinds of projects that will be at the forefront of the AV shift—new urban districts and large mixed-use developments. Any parking we build or that exists today should be able to support 50 to 100 percent more development in 10 years. That’s an unprecedented opportunity to double our density in urban cores.”

Dixon and other AV advocates advise that urban planners and municipalities should look at every possible alternative to building structured parking and consider surface parking only as a placeholder for a site. They also suggest requiring district parking for large development areas and shared parking for mixed-use residential development to reduce by a third the number of parking spaces needed by residents and office/retail spaces.

Rethinking Roads

“The million-dollar question is, ‘What’s the minimum we have to do to redesign streets?’” says Larco. “None of us are building for this new technology, and most of us want to make as few changes as possible.”

AVs will require rethinking roadway and street design for elements such as separation of lanes by speed, lane width, and prioritization, locating pick-up/drop off zones, and paying more attention to how buildings meet sidewalks and streets. During the transition to a fully automated AV fleet, narrower lanes could be designated and striped like HOV lanes are now. But as AVs are adopted more widely, roadways might be designed with narrower lanes, which would leave more public-realm space for active streetscapes, pedestrian and bike infrastructure, open space, and green infrastructure.

Harvard GSD’s Future of Streets project, led by Andres Sevtsuk, created 24 scenarios for how cities might adapt streets to emerging transportation technology—ride-hailing, as well as electric and autonomous vehicles—in ways that ideally would maximize multimodal, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable outcomes. The research project is partnering with the Los Angeles and Boston planning and transportation departments. At key intersections in each city, Sevtsuk explained at the Planning Directors Institute last fall, his team assessed the current scenario, then outlined “heaven” and “hell” alternatives.

At LA’s busy downtown Vermont/Santa Monica intersection, site of a Red Line rail station, the team’s “heaven” scenario for shared electric AVs included improved public transport systems, shared AV pick-up and drop-off zones, continuous bike lanes, active retail facades, and street trees and landscaping. The potential “hell” scenario for the same intersection included an AV-exclusive freeway prone to being blocked by disabled vehicles, an elevated highway for private AVs, drive-indoors restaurants, and railings and barriers that prevented pedestrian crossings. More than two-thirds of the AV scenarios created as part of the project’s research pointed to more congestion, says Sevtsuk.

Sevtsuk advises cities to begin making urban design and infrastructure changes that can help manage TNCs and the transition to AVs, beginning with passenger pickup and drop-off areas. “Hong Kong and Singapore, very dense cities, have highly regulated pick up/drop off zones on every city block,” he says, adding that the lack of such zones in U.S. cities is causing major traffic and public safety issues. The Future of Streets project is also exploring the use of HOV lanes for multi-passenger AVs, as well as for bus rapid transit, as an incentive for using shared mobility, promoting the idea that “if you share your rides, you’ll get through cities much faster,” says Sevtsuk.

In some cities, these changes are starting to appear. Las Vegas is working on a change to its zoning code to allow for downtown ride-share lots that would eventually also serve as AV passenger zones, says Summerfield. Local companies Lyft and Zappos partnered on creating a downtown art park and pick-up/drop-off area on a privately owned parking lot. The city approved the pilot last year as a special-event project, a one-off to prove the concept could work. The city then entitled the project through the normal process as a plaza/parking facility, and is trying to replicate it with other private landowners and city properties as a public amenity that can help reduce traffic congestion.

Preparing for Change

The shifts caused by AVs will affect municipal budgets. In fiscal year 2016, the 25 largest U.S cities netted nearly $5 billion from parking-related activities, camera and traffic citations, gas taxes, towing, and vehicle registration and licensing fees (Governing 2017). But gas tax revenues will shrink if AVs are electric. There could be fewer vehicle registration fees as car ownership dwindles. Parking tickets could become a thing of the past. The list goes on.

“The change will be stepped, and not gradual,” says Larco. He advises cities to consider VMT fees, congestion pricing, and new municipal revenue generators, such as taxes or fees for empty seats, charging stations, use of curb access, fleet parking, GPS, data, advertisements, and mobile business and retail, as well as tax credits for vehicles full of passengers.

So far, cities have approached companies like Uber and Lyft with mostly “stick” dissuaders of fees and taxes for their impacts, notes Sevtsuk. Some U.S. cities are considering a congestion toll, such as those levied in European cities like Stockholm. But congestion charges are hard to implement, he says, and have to be approved at the state level. He says a combination of carrots and sticks, with more progressive ways to welcome new technology on the streets, is more likely to gain public approval.

As the AV industry gains speed, cities also will have to factor in many other considerations—ranging from the location of electric charging stations to the redesign of traffic signals, from redevelopment opportunities to workforce impacts—and they don’t have much time to do it.

By some estimations, 2030 will be the tipping point for tech companies and OEMs to produce AVs exclusively and for the public to adopt AVs on a massive scale, with the potential for a completely autonomous fleet by 2050. Some states are already preparing for an AV future: The Colorado Department of Transportation is planning for communications between vehicles and the highway along the I-70 corridor that traverses the state from east to west through the Rocky Mountains.  

But AVs also might not dominate the landscape as soon as some tech companies and OEMs hope. In the United States, 50 percent of respondents to a survey conducted by Deloitte did not believe AVs will be safe, and 56 percent were not interested in ridesharing services. Nearly two-thirds of respondents were concerned about biometric data being captured via a connected vehicle and shared with external parties (Deloitte 2019).

Regardless of how quickly AVs will be adopted, says Larco, “they will have impacts on all sorts of things in cities, and we need to prepare.” He advises urban planners, municipal officials, economic development directors, environment and equity advocates, and others to be proactive about making policy and infrastructure changes. Cities historically have had trouble with change, he says, and the pace of change is much faster now. When it comes to evolving mobility options, he adds, cities will need to “be nimble in their approach, create responsive regulations, and change the culture of risk with stakeholders and constituents by letting them know, ‘We’re going to try things out.’”

New Mobility Options and Equity

In cities and suburbs alike, many people who are elderly or disabled, who live too far from public transit stations, or who can’t afford transit fare are left without convenient mobility options. How do cities equitably share the benefits of new mobility options for all their residents?

Some cities are making it a priority. In Washington, DC, Ford is piloting a citywide AV project in both wealthy and low-income neighborhoods. The city’s Interagency AV Working Group, composed of transportation, disability rights, environmental, and public safety officials, is focused on ensuring AVs will benefit all eight wards of the city. Last October, Ford Autonomous Vehicles announced a job training program in conjunction with the AV project, in partnership with the DC Infrastructure Academy and Argo AI, an artificial intelligence company.

In other cities, AVs are playing a role in on-demand transit programs. In what may be the first-of-its-kind partnership between an AV tech company and a public transit system outside of a controlled environment, Waymo and the Phoenix area’s Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (Valley Metro) have been using Waymo’s self-driving vehicles as robotaxis to help fill some mobility gaps across the metro area.

“Think of it as the start of mobility on demand or mobility as a service,” says Scott Smith, CEO of Valley Metro, which provides regional bus service and a 26-mile light-rail system slated to expand to 66 miles by 2034. Bloomberg reports the first wave of paying Waymo customers likely will draw from the early rider program for trips such as first and last-mile transportation to transit stations, but the partnership also holds promise for addressing transportation inequities.

In California, a $12 million pilot program launched last fall by the City of Sacramento and Sacramento Regional Transit has expanded low-cost rides in electric shuttles to connect people in the lower-income neighborhoods of disinvested South Sacramento with jobs and services as part of a larger effort to provide greater social and economic equity around transit. The shuttles cost less than ride-hailing services, and rides are free for groups of five or more. So far the electric vehicles are not AVs, but in a city that prides itself on being, in the words of Mayor Darrell Steinberg, “a center of innovation in new transportation technologies,” that could soon change.

Kathleen McCormick, principal of Fountainhead Communications, LLC, lives and works in Boulder, Colorado, and writes frequently about sustainable, healthy, and resilient communities.

Photograph: A driverless shuttle at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, where researchers are studying consumer acceptance of autonomous vehicles. Credit: Levi Hutmacher, University of Michigan. 

References

Arity. 2018. “Be Patient, a Change Is Gonna Come.” November 8. https://www.arity.com/move/patient-change-gonna-come/.

Bloomberg Philanthropies and The Aspen Institute. 2017. “Taming the Autonomous Vehicle: A Primer for Cities.” Long Island City, NY: Bloomberg Philanthropies and The Aspen Institute (March). https://www.bbhub.io/dotorg/sites/2/2017/05/TamingtheAutonomousVehicleSpreadsPDF.pdf.

Bragg, Dave and Stephen Pazzano. 2017. “The Transportation Revolution: The Impact of Ride-Hailing and Driverless Vehicles on Real Estate.” Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute and Green Street Advisors (October). http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/gstqa-us-west/uploads/2017/10/19153037/ULI-Green-Street-Fall-17-Presentation.pdf.

City of Austin and Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board. 2017. “Smart Mobility Roadmap.” Austin, TX: City of Austin and METRO (October). http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Smart_Mobility_Roadmap_-_Final.pdf.

Crute, Jeremy, William Riggs, AICP, Timothy Chapin, and Lindsay Stevens, AICP. 2018. “Planning for Autonomous Mobility.” Chicago, IL: American Planning Association (September). https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9157605/.

Deloitte. 2019. “Global Automotive Consumer Study: Advanced Vehicle Technologies and Multimodal Transportation.” https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/manufacturing/articles/automotive-trends-millennials-consumer-study.html#.

Governing. 2017. “Special Report: How Autonomous Vehicles Could Constrain City Budgets.” Washington, D.C.: Governing (July). https://www.governing.com/gov-data/gov-how-autonomous-vehicles-could-effect-city-budgets.html#data.

Harvard University Graduate School of Design. “Future of Streets.” https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/project/future-of-streets/

Perkins, Lucy, Nicole Dupuis, and Brooks Rainwater. 2018. “Autonomous Vehicle Pilots Across America.” Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities. https://www.nlc.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/AV%20MAG%20Web.pdf.

Scharnhorst, Eric and Research Institute for Housing America. 2018. “Quantified Parking: Comprehensive Parking Inventories for Five U.S. Cities.” Washington, D.C.: Mortgage Bankers Association (May). https://www.mba.org/Documents/18806_Research_RIHA_Parking_Report%20(1).pdf.

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2017. “New Mobility Playbook.” Seattle, WA. September. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/NewMobilityProgram/NewMobility_Playbook_9.2017.pdf.

Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities. https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/.

University of Oregon. “Urbanism Next Center.” https://urbanismnext.uoregon.edu/