Dear Friends and Colleagues, Welcome to the latest edition of the The Collaborative. Long time readers of the Newsletter will notice a change in our layout. We are experimenting with ways to make the newsletter more inviting and readable. We hope to create an effective tool that communicates TLUC News around our projects, events, and conferences we attend. We will continue to highlight key issues surrounding Urban Planning in Southern California as well as editorialize on them. This month's Collaborative features editorials by our staff members on contemporary planning issues. Tracy Williams, a Transportation Planner with LADOT, and Laura Benjamin, a senior Urban Planning student at Occidental College, volunteered with us in November and also have written about their perspectives. Finally, TLUC would like to wish you all a Happy Holidays! Sincerely, Samuel Filler TLUC on the MoveThis month, TLUC revisited important issues in urban planning and rediscovered strategies relevant to the cities and communities we work for. We examined the transportation, land use, and environmental connection in planning for growth at UCLA Extension's Lake Arrowhead Symposium. At the Mobility 21 Regional Transportation Summit we evaluated the need to better plan the region's goods movement, increase transportation funding and infrastructure, and think regionally about transportation needs for Southern California. From the 13th Annual California Policy Issues Conference – Connecting California: Bridging the Digital and Geographic Divides, we heard from experts about new inequalities for low-income communities and communities of color and new policies to alleviate the issues. We also learned from urban designers and public space advocates at Public Space LA the growing needs and innovative ideas for bringing more quality open spaces to cities. Changing the paradigm: Taking personal responsibility for Global WarmingBy Jesus Cuellar Congestion, sprawl, global warming and pollution are among the major issues that detrimentally affect our daily lifestyle. Yet, are we as a society sincerely concerned with and committed to improving that which harms us and our surroundings? At first glance, the green and sustainability movement might force us to believe so, but are we really? In a recent article published by the Sacramento Bee, 72 percent of those surveyed favored taxing businesses to fight global warming. However, upon discovering that such a tax would increase the price of goods and services, support dropped to 53%. The fact of the matter is that citizens will not attack the problems if they are not directly affected or if they are responsible for paying. Congestion, sprawl, global warming and pollution are severe problems with long term effects. As a result, until people are personally confronted with the consequences of their actions, there will be no urgency or need for a paradigm shift. The green movement is a small step, but an important one at that. If change is desired, empowerment and education at the local, state and national level is imperative. Individuals must acknowledge their roles as citizens and patrons that govern how they live. They must form partnerships with local and governmental institutions to inspire innovative change. Most importantly, they must acknowledge the need to continually adapt to the changing world around them. "Community organizing is key when you empower people in on area, it has residual effects." Inclusive Eco-friendly Decision-makingBy Joel Ulloa Hybrid Priuses, fluorescent light bulbs, reduced driving, reduced lighting. Leaders in the arena of environmental conservation hash out tips for preserving energy that target the individual citizen. But are they inclusive enough for all Americans? Pioneers of the green movement spread the word and encourage people around the world to become involved. Such noble and dedicated efforts cannot go unnoticed, but the audience these leaders are attracting may be too narrow. Citizens are encouraged everyday to be conservative with the natural resources they consume, but those most responsive to such suggestions are well-informed citizens knowledgeable enough about the issue to care and participate in the movement. Despite the fact that the degradation of the environment affects everyone, the same does not hold true for the amount of people who understand the connections between their actions and their potential impact. Currently, our policies and built environment do not lend themselves to the successful development of this movement. One of Al Gore's tips is to drive less and use public transit. Unless our transit network is sufficiently extensive and effective, such recommendation makes no sense. Citizens should not be held completely accountable for the environment's degradation if their built environment and infrastructure are not conducive to actions that will preserve our environment. Policy and citizen participation should be equally encouraged to make this difference. Citizens should not be considered entirely innocent for actions contributing to environmental disintegration either, but policies should design a playing field that will encourage eco-friendly decision-making. Political intervention can design strategies that will encourage citizens to make better decisions by narrowing their options of consumption to less destructive ones. For instance, a federal judge in Fresno, recently ruled that California would be allowed to set its own standards for carbon emissions with the approval of the EPA. Whether the waiver is granted or not, this is an example of political intervention that can encourage better decision-making through consumption. Allowing California to mediate its own carbon-emission standards would potentially force auto-industries to change their line of work to something a little more suitable, thereby providing more ecologically sensitive vehicles to their clientele. With more political intervention and participation, the responsibility of maintaining an environmentally sound earth does not rely on the individually motivated actions of citizens. This in turn incorporates all Americans and not only environmental activists who care enough to change their actions independent of the government. The green movement is a small step, but an important one at that. If change is desired, empowerment and education at the local, state and national level is imperative. Individuals must acknowledge their roles as citizens and patrons that govern how they live. They must form partnerships with local and governmental institutions to inspire innovative change. Most importantly, they must acknowledge the need to continually adapt to the changing world around them. Why we hate density & what we can doBy Christine Aure Southern Californians hate density. They hate it because it encourages unhealthy living conditions, overcrowding, decreases home values, and deteriorates streets and infrastructure. Even now, in low-density single-family residential neighborhoods, people are noticing their quality of life is deteriorating. They see a lack of investment in their cities and lack of care and maintenance in their neighborhoods. And they question how much worse it will get if there are more people, more homes, and more uses. However, density does not have to be bad. Good quality density can actually help the neighborhood. A balance between housing and jobs generates increased revenue for the city. Amenities close to homes encourages decreased automobile dependency and increased walking. Mixed-use promotes activity along streets and thus addresses safety issues. Community members want to hear how new density will not negatively affect their neighborhoods. Thus, it is the role of government officials to ensure allocation of sufficient investment to all areas. And it is the role of planners and urban designers to develop and visually demonstrate an alternative vision. Planners can take a cue from Urban Advantage, an organization committed to using photo-editing software to propose new types of development in existing neighborhoods, and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, an organization that explores how various design approaches accommodate different levels of density. Density is not the real culprit. Bad planning is. Planners and the government must assure the community higher density will not further devastate their neighborhoods. They can do this by visually demonstrating an alternative vision and bringing more funds to enhance public infrastructure.
Working Together with Public Transportation in Southern CaliforniaBy Tracy Williams
Transportation generates impacts on the built environment and its urban and rural settings. It touches the lives of all people on a daily basis. Whether a person is a pedestrian, cyclist or a driver, transportation concerns will affect some point of their daily life. Traffic congestion represents one of our community's main concerns. Commuters dislike living with the woes of traffic congestion consisting of crowded streets and freeways that exemplify parking lots. Los Angeles Department of Transportation claims that, "The Los Angeles area experiences the worst traffic congestion in the country." It is becoming impossible for the existing infrastructure to accommodate the growing population and its vehicle usage. City officials are continuously working with communities to implement various modes of public transportation systems such as buses, light rail, metro rail, and bicycle lanes as well as coordinating traffic signals and installing traffic calmers to alleviate traffic congestion. Citizens can play a part in achieving a solution to traffic issues by using public transportation. Believe it or not, it is possible for some of us to sacrifice the convenience of an automobile. Ridership is soaring in some parts of the country. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), "In 2006, Americans took 10.1 billion trips on public transportation - the highest ridership level in 49 years." APTA suggests that public transportation benefits riders in many ways. "It enhances personal opportunities," such as mobility access to jobs, schools, and "reduces gasoline consumption." Furthermore, it minimizes traffic congestion and air pollution. Remember, planning for the built environment is a joint effort of all involved. City officials and citizens must work together as a community to keep Southern California's traffic moving. Planning for Public HealthBy Laura Benjamin When thinking about public health, we often think only of the biomedical field. Yet public health officials assert that the distribution of resources and power dynamics are often the most influential factors in the health of a community. In this sense, planning directly affects public health. Everyday we are affected by the air we breath, the food we eat, and the ability to lead active lives. The health of low-income communities of color are often the most negatively affected by unjust and unsustainable planning practices. It is easy to see that the City of Los Angeles is endangering many of its residents. Communities that border heavily industrialized areas and transportation corridors must live with the constant presence of intense noise and air pollution. The deleterious effects of poor planning are apparent in the health of community residents. Almost one-third of all school children in these areas suffer from asthma. Obesity is also a rising concern in these communities as children are forced to stay indoors when pollution levels are dangerously high. Community planning offers hope for Angelenos' health. Addressing the needs and concerns of both community residents and public health officials will help to alleviate and prevent the burdens placed on these communities. Community involvement, including outreach and public education is also necessary for the sustainability of any new plans. With this view of planning, we have the ability to ensure that our communities become a positive force in the public health field.
|
In the News
|
Volunteer with TLUC