Stoplight Urbanism Pt.II: The current condition

Today I will continue with the second part of my essay on the effect of traffic control on urbanism and my modest anarchic proposal for change.

To recap the first part:

For millenia movement through cities and villages was regulated by mutual interest and rooted in a notion of common-law that began to be restricted with the enclosure movements of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Under such a system no traveller had a superior right over another; no person or vehicle had dominance and all spatial claims to the space of the road were recognized to have equal value.
...
While in many western countries the establishment of the primacy of the automobile led to a drastic shift in custom and space, in developing nations the assimilation of motorized transportation in society has been unable to change customs regarding road use. Such intense systems of concession, predicated in intense interaction, result in the ability to change formation instantaneously and avoid obstacles and stoppages as they occur. These fluid dynamics utilize the whole of human reaction and intellect and exhibit a complex relation of communication and instinct not present in the smartest mechanical control.

At the dawn of the twentieth century urban areas exploded with growth as millions abandoned rural lives to seek fortune in the industrialized cities of the world. With the overwhelming concentration of people in small geographic areas, the sixty years spanning the years between 1890 and 1950 would see an obsession with congestion as the gravest threat to cities. In some cases, although technological innovations had allowed such congestion to occur, technology was again proposed as the answer. Thomas Edison predicted the wide-scale adoption of automobiles would “so relieve traffic as to make Manhattan Island resemble the ‘The Deserted Village’” [Fogelson, 253]. Others sought less sweeping measures to fight congestion through regulation and traffic control.


Today the concept of right of way is so ingrained in our daily lives that it is shocking to learn that this is a construct of the past century. Initially such rights were based on arbitrary designations that varied erratically between municipalities. In a parochial age each municipality prescribing right of way to either North/South or East/West traffic [Todd, 10] may have been a plausible solution. However over twenty five years after the adoption of standard time in a society of increasing mobility, such an answer was destined to be unsuccessful. The interim solution came in a custom borrowed from France in which vehicles defer to the vehicle on their right. Such a system still relies on informal means and becomes increasingly difficult when applied to the major intersections being constructed as part of ambitious street widening projects. By the 1920’s the current system of rights of way predicated on a deference of minor roads to major roads was in firmly in place. Since that time the only alteration has been the use of traffic light systems weighted to give precedence to the major thoroughfare.


"Only" by BrittneyBush on Flickr

The first modern traffic light was deployed in Salt Lake City in 1912 [Wikipedia, 1]. Although a direct refinement of the London Signal of 1868, the traffic light would undergo a decade of nearly continuous refinement in form and operation until the first interconnected automatic three color traffic lights were installed in Houston.


The traffic lights that we encounter every day are similar to the 1922 Houston traffic lights, with a small degree of technological refinement. Interestingly, several of the most prevalent innovations are designed to subvert the very concept of a signalling system. Most common are the walk light buttons that advance the traffic light cycle to allow pedestrians to cross in a timely manner. Another common subversion is the actuated signal in which embedded sensors in the pavement detect the weight of a waiting vehicle and override arterial right of way at non-peak times. More controversial are devices that allow emergency vehicles to bypass red lights by emitting an infrared signal; predictably such devices were manufactured and sold to general consumers and, as a result, federal law now criminalizes the possession of such devices for consumer use.


Traffic management center in the Twin Cities. Image from Minnesota DOT

The most advanced systems of traffic lights are coordinated control systems that utilize computers to enable motorists on major thoroughfares to travel miles without encountering lights by adjusting for predicted speed or, in the most advanced systems, average speed as detected by numerous embedded sensors. These systems “signal the dream of the liberal state ... They work best when no one notices them, and when regulation becomes cooperation and facilitation”[Pile, 263]. One subset of such systems are centrally controlled systems (as made famous by the original Italian Job) where data and video are directed to command centers that control entire street networks throughout the city.


While refinements continue to advance the technology of traffic signalling, safety has not improved. More than three decades after the adoption of the traffic light there were still over ten traffic fatalities for every murder [Ross, 231] and this gap continued to widen, despite safer automotive design. Traffic signals are rendered unsafe by human psychology. Traffic light systems “make drivers go fast and keep close behind to the vehicle in front for fear of missing the green light” and furthermore cause drivers to cross intersections “with their eyes up in the air rather than on the road” [Todd, 11] The coordinated control systems previously discussed can actually encourage reckless driving by causing “drivers [to] use excessive speed in order to ‘make’ as many lights as possible” [Wikipedia, 10]. Additionally such systems have become the norm and are frequently demanded by residents leading to the chronic under-funding of local transportation agencies. In a recent survey “68 percent said they have... no documented management plan for their traffic signal operation” [U.S. Traffic Signals get Poor Grades, 1] resulting in the typically poor calibration of signals.


Traffic lights also contribute to more dangerous streets by altering the psychological and sociological relationships of drivers to their surroundings. The traffic light is responsible in large part for an abnormal conditioning of motorists. Traffic lights alter the standard control relationships seen in society for, once the visible police officer is replaced by the unseeing mechanical device, the “guilt and ... recognition of the gap between our actions and those of the ideal citizen” [Pile, 263] is lessened by proxy. This condition has recently given rise to the use of red-light cameras to remind motorists that traffic lights have all the authority and power of a live police officer. Another, more dangerous, conditioning resulting from acclamation to traffic lights is complacency. Drivers develop expectations for operating within the current system and that deprives them of the necessity to be aware.


"Playing in Traffic" by Geognerd on Flickr

It is assumed that merely following the rules should keep them safe. Of course when externalities inevitably arise drivers are ill-prepared to adapt.

Malfunctioning traffic light causes mayhem in Russia.

This complacency can be seen in the vast rise of alternative motoring activities such as grooming, eating, and cellular phone use while driving. While these behaviors are a result of expectations conditioned by the system, another problem lies in the conditioning of actions. In those rare occasions, such as power failures, when drivers must actively negotiate passage they are not confident in their abilities to physically negotiate and communicate with other drivers.


A second problematic result of modern traffic control should be plainly evident to anyone who has walked, cycled or run on public streets: The controlled situation of driving has resulted in a systemic aggrandizement of the driver over other forms of transportation. Modern right-of-way rules, one-way streets and traffic lights encourage “motorists to travel at high speed on urban arterial roads and intersections without looking for opposing traffic” [Todd, 11]. The physical and often psychological separation of thoroughfares into vehicular roads and pedestrian walkways or bicycle paths has caused the “driver to see that he or she has priority. And the child who forgets for a moment ... is a child in the wrong place” [Baker 2004, 2]. The conditioning leads to inadvertent or intentional arrogance on the part of drivers and, at its worst, is manifested in the much discussed phenomena of road rage.


The aggrandizement of the driver is mirrored in society at large as illegal traffic acts are “not stigmatized by the public as criminal” [Ross, 241] except in extreme cases of negligence and the majority of traffic crimes receive much more lenient sentencing than other categories such as drug or weapons offences. This situation has been examined through a Marxist lens by some who observe that because “the law is made and operated in the interests of the well-to-do,” then driving offenses such as speeding “are not ordinarily thought to ‘count’ as crimes” [Ross, 235].


In part III I will examine alternatives to structured traffic control and theorize an urbanism without stoplights.


Works Cited:

1. Baker, Linda. “Why Don’t We Do It in the Road?” 25 October 2007. Salon.com. .

2. Fogelson, Robert M. Downtown: Its Rise and Fall, 1880-1950. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2001. p, 253

3. “Report: U.S. Traffic Signals Get Poor Grades”. 25 October 2007. MSNBC.com. .

4. Ross, H. Lawrence. "Traffic Law Violation: A Folk Crime." Social Problems, Vol. 8. 1960-1961: 231-241.

5. Todd, Kenneth. “Traffic Control: An Exercise in Self-Doubt.” Regulation. Fall 2004: 10.

6. “Traffic Light”. 10 October 2007. Wikipedia. .

7. City A-Z: Urban Fragments. Ed. Steve Pile and Nigel Thrift. New York: Routledge, 2000. p. 263.

So many shades of green (or how to get the green)

Avenida Luis Xavier, Curitiba Brazil by Mathieu Struck

Well, it is officially summer again and that means it is time for an annual ritual. No, not Naked Hiking Day which was notable this year for the supposed attendance of one governor. Rather, this week marks the onslaught of numerous new rankings of sustainable cities. While sustainability remains a term that, in its complexity, allows for astonishingly broad leeway, lists of sustainable cities even exceed that flexibility. While metrics for ranking sustainable cities may range from personal indoctrination to more objective analysis, there are of course a number of common finalists.

MotherNature Network listed their Top 10 Green US Cities today:

1. Portland, Oregon
2. San Francisco, California
3. Boston, Massachusetts
4. Oakland, California
5. Eugene, Oregon
6. Cambridge, Massachusetts
7. Berkeley, California
8. Seattle, Washington
9. Chicago, Illinois
10. Austin, Texas

On June 17th Treehugger listed their picks for 5 of the Greenest Cities in the World to Visit

1. Portland, Oregon
2. Freiburg, Germany
3. Zermatt, Switzerland
4. Montreal, Quebec, Canada
5. Austin, Texas, USA

While comparing an international green travel list to a national green city list is strictly a chronologically motivated artifice (much like apples and oranges or electric and diesel locomotives) certain commonalities are striking. The majority of the cities on the list are home to institutes of research and higher education which provide both a foundation for diverse and advanced economies. The majority of cities on the list are located on navigable bodies of water that may again serve in the future as thoroughfares for freight and goods. The majority of cities have carefully balanced bold political decisions, such as banning automobiles or plastic bags, with bold economic decisions such as the creation of large-scale alternative energy generation. These cities have also thoroughly embraced low-tech solutions such as tree planting and public composting. All cities on the list have championed transportation flexibility by facilitating widespread bicycling, developing walkability, and supporting public transportation.

The single most striking element shared by the majority of cities on the list was an educational component. While the majority of cities on the list exhibit higher than average socio-economic and educational statuses, such programs could prove even more vital for more average cities. An educated public is the cornerstone of sustainability. Without an understanding of the economic and environmental results of current lifestyles and an appreciation of the long term effects on the community any recycling program is doomed to fail. Furthermore, without education and appreciation of sustainable measures, even citizen-initiated progressive efforts are doomed to fail.

Another interesting point is that we must judge sustainability through the lens of cities. While there are dozens of lists of top "sustainable" or "green" cities there are virtually none for states, provinces or countries. This is especially interesting given the tenuous stance of cities in the United States. While Europe and Africa have strong traditions of city states (Venice and Carthage come to mind) cities have no legal basis within the U.S. Constitution. Rather the American city exists solely as a subunit of state government. Despite this subservient status, in the United States and in countries throughout the world, the city unit has played the primary role in the struggle for urban sustainability. While city administrations typically lack the technical proficiency and ability of bureaucrats at higher levels and often make corrupt and shortsighted decisions that impair future efforts, their smaller size typically makes them more responsive and often allows for greater flexibility in decision making than higher forms of government.

The downside to the primary role of the city in sustainability is increasingly uncoordinated and cutthroat competition for green sector industries. As the carbon clock ticks, cities must keep themselves ahead of the curve in order to attract skilled residents and create new jobs. Cities will benefit from investment programs in existing industries as well; for every million dollars invested in retrofitting infrastructure and increasing existing energy efficiency, 22 new jobs are created. Furthermore, European companies like Siemens have capitalized on the slow response of United States industry towards sustainable products and stand to gain billions from world-wide bailout programs. A century ago the majority of light-rail infrastructure in the United States was manufactured by companies like the St. Louis Car Company .
St. Louis Car Company circa 1908

Today even the Metrolink trains operated in St. Louis are manufactured by Siemens. Since 1982 all new subway cars ordered for our nation's capitol have been manufactured overseas. While this phenomena is endemic across all industries, it points to a huge opportunity for American cities who are seeking to center their economic growth on sustainability. Many of the cities on the list above rank highly only because they have outsourced most of their manufacturing to India and China. Despite greening claims and endless restricted bike lanes no city can remain sustainable or think of self-sufficiency without an industrial base. Anything else will be a missed opportunity. The challenge assumed by the leading cities of the twenty first century is the balance of clean industry with waste remediation. After all, innovation is the foundation of sustainability and, while important, planting trees and recycling cans can only take you so far.

This WAS the future

"[w]e believe that the revitalized spirit of St. Louis as symbolized by the Gateway Arch and the new Busch Memorial Stadium and other progressive developments has shown that St. Louis is a city on the move and is rapidly growing toward becoming the center of progress in the Middle West."
-- Joseph Vatterott [in a Globe-Democrat article on the construction of the DeVille Motor Lodge]

Preservation board votes 3-2 to approve preliminary demolition review for The San Luis Apartments for a surface parking lot

It was a long and lively night night at 1015 Locust. In addition to the San Luis there were five other issues on the agenda. Beginning at 4pm the meeting finally adjourned with the decision at 10pm. Most of the people who packed the twelfth floor conference room had not eaten since lunch, but still they stayed to contribute to the process. Noticeably absent from the entire hearing were preservation board members Mary "One" Johnson, John Burse, David Visintainer and Terry Kennedy. Over twenty citizens spoke ranging from the project architect and the principal of Rosati-Kain high school (who needs 30 odd parking spaces for teenage girls so badly she intimated moving the school if demolition were to be denied) as well as residents and citizens from every stripe. A trump card for the diocese, the former building superintendent, inadvertently summed up the attitude of the applicants after his remarks stating

"When I look around this room I realize my Marine discharge card is older than most of the people in this room."

With this literal example of patrimonial superiority out of the way, other less blatant examples continued. It was extremely interesting to detect that Cultural Resources director Kate Shea, Christner Project Architect Dan Jay and Preservation Board chairman Richard Callow all referred to the architect of the building in question, Charles Colbert, as an "insignificant regional architect" despite Colbert's elevation to a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects and career as Dean of Architecture at Tulane, Columbia, and Texas A&M. This message belies not only a smug superiority but a seemingly improper level of coordination between the applicant and those that must rule on the application. In addition the numbers used by Shea were dubious at best and considered restoration costs to be upwards of $300/sf. Testimony by Chicago-based developer Steve Anrod and local architect Paul Hohman quickly refuted these numbers.


[Architect Paul Hohman testifies before the preservation board]


[Developer Steve Anrod testifies before the preservation board]


[Lynn Josse testifies that the "green" surface parking lot does not meet existing zoning guidelines]

In my statement I underscored the vital role the preservation board plays in safeguarding what little urbanism remains in Saint Louis. I explicitly highlighted the importance of such areas to the future viability of Saint Louis:

"If Saint Louis is to remain a viable city in this century we must attract young educated orofessionals to the city and staunch the flow of educated Saint Louis youth to more vibrant cities around the country.

If we are to be more than our sister cities Detroit, Youngstown and Gary, Indiana [At this point Preservation Board Chairman Richard Callow, visibly agitated, interrupted me to put me on notice that this was my "one warning". I continued...]

We must directly compete with New York , San Francisco and Chicago. I entreat the preservation board to realize that it is the stewardship of the urbanism of neighborhoods like the Central West End and the preservation of their built density that will do more to raise the image and status of our 52nd most-important city than any chinese freight hub industrial development."

I continued by touching on the site of the Buckingham Hotel, still a surface lot almost 40 years later, the deleterious effect of the surface lot on the context of the urban pocket park proposed immediately north of the site, and the negative traffic impact the parking lot exit would have on Taylor Avenue.


[Parking lot architect Dan Jay issues a final rebuttal]

Despite Kate Shea's earlier assertion that the "basis in preservation law is economic reuse" Alderwoman Lyda Krewson demolished this statement by claiming in essence that since the diocese wouldn't sell or otherwise repair or redevelop the building the board should just approve demolition. This is a perilous stance for an Alderwoman who represents the most urban and intact areas of St. Louis and it is a stance which, once applied to powerful and monied interests throughout the city, will inevitably result in the destruction of what little remains of urbanism in St. Louis.

At around 9:45pm Ald. Phyllis Young was called on to introduce a motion to approve preliminary demolition review. The vote was as follows:

Anthony Robinson - Against
Melanie Fathman - Against
Phyllis Young - For
David Richardson - For
Richard Callow - For


In hindsight it is interesting to compare the outcomes for the last two items on the agenda. The previous item was a one story cottage rehab in the Fox Park Historic District. The owner, one Brian Dunn, had gone through proper channels to build a side porch but had installed three windows that were non-compliant according to the historic district code. As an employee for the city water department he did not have the resources necessary to replace the new windows with compliant windows with an arched upper sash. It was estimated these windows would cost in excess of $4000. He asked to retain his new windows or as a compromise he asked for forbearance as he could not afford to replace the windows and continue the project.

At one point Alderwoman Phyllis Young inquired about his current house in the Compton Heights neighborhood. He indicated that he was still months away from occupancy in the Fox Park house and that he was not sure what he would do with his mortgaged current residence when he moved. Young then intimated that he should sell his current residence to finance the windows for the project.

In other words, the diocese is allowed to refuse to maintain or sell a property. Based on those decisions they are granted preliminary approval to demolish a functional twelve story building for a surface parking lot while a homeowner struggling to rehabilitate a long derelict structure is harassed over the difference between three windows with an arched upper sash and windows with a half-round transom. It is good to see our elected officials and public stewards have the courage and vision to fight for the preservation of what really matters! With attitudes like these it is amazing we have any neighborhoods left.

Perhaps like Youngstown we will blindly continue to accept demolition until we have no unique city left to preserve. If Richard Callow and the city patrimony continue on the present path it may not be just a rhetorical overstatement.