My hometown of Flagstaff, Arizona, is defined by a railroad. It exists solely because of the railroad. And today, efforts to improve auto traffic flow through town and create safe and efficient bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are made more complicated, perhaps impossible by the railroad.
Initially established as a depot for timber and sheep, Flagstaff grew in radiating patterns away from the train station. Route 66, also a dominant feature that has deeply influenced Flagstaff's form, was built parallel to the railroad from one end of town to the other. To get anywhere in Flagstaff requires driving either parallel to the railroad or crossing the railroad. One bridge and one overpass are the only alternatives to several at grade crossings. This is important because between 70 and 110 freight trains move through town each day.
The recent post on The Atlantic's City Lab: "Mapping the Urban Fingerprints of Cities" reinforces a crucial issue. Form matters. Form is produced by decisions, history, market forces and in the case of Flagstaff, a central feature that shapes and defines the city.
As transportation planners thinking about how to make cities safer, more efficient, and more conducive to non-auto modes, existing urban form has to be at the front of all planning efforts - and the local constraints (and opportunities) define everything. The urban form can be changed to accommodate these new transportation goals, but it is expensive, destructive, and will never happen without a fight. (For a Tucson example of this, look to the history of the reconstruction of the 4th street and Congress intersection and underpass)
Flagstaff has made an effort for sure. It's regional transit system is awesome for the size of community it serves and it has one of the best urban trail systems in the country. But for a region that has less than 100,000 residents, rush hour, lunch hour, the end of the school day and holiday weekends create snarling traffic conditions.
There are no easy answers - no matter how much money the city would be willing to spend or how much political consensus could be reached. Just move the railroad.
Check out the article:
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/09/mapping-the-urban-fingerprints-of-cities/404923/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what is decided in Flagstaff, I think efforts should be made to continue development in a contextually appropriate manner.Figure ground masses-to-void analysis is a interesting method to compare the urban patterns of cities. The poetic relationship between building masses and space can vary drastically from one city to the next. Planners and urban designers could use figure-ground to conceptualize new uses and to propose contextually appropriate development within the existing urban fabric. Planners can design too!
ReplyDelete