Ray Atkinson started this blog in 2014 when he moved from his childhood home in Kannapolis, NC (Walk Score of 0) to get his Master of Urban and Regional Planning degree from Portland State University (Walk Score of 100). He has never owned a car despite living in Memphis, TN. His email is gismap1@gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/rayplans
I have been asking myself about how self-driving cars could impact my car-free lifestyle. I wanted to write this post to document this thought. I am curious to see whether I will look back at this post someday and be amazed by actually owning a fully self-driving car. Since I currently avoid buying a car because I do not want to drive, I feel the availability of fully self-driving cars could result in me feeling comfortable enough to buy a car. As you may know, fully self-driving cars do not exist yet.
While I do not want my future girlfriend to pressure me into buying a car, my previous dates have asked me what it would take for me to buy a car. I usually answer them by saying that I do not plan to buy a car, and I am not open to changing my car-free lifestyle. Since not having a car is viewed in American culture as being poor, which is frustrating when other cultures do not have this viewpoint, I clarify that I can afford to buy a car. I just choose a car-free lifestyle. Due to the potential of self-driving cars, I have been changing my answer to sharing that I may purchase a fully self-driving car when it is available to purchase. Do you want to buy a self-driving car?
Could this be a photo of Ray someday?
My friend, Parisa, and I nerded out about this video today. Parisa shared the video with me. Since she is from Iran, I have also enjoyed learning more about Persian culture from her. She has enjoyed learning more about American culture from me. She is a PhD student researching AI technology at a university in Memphis. I enjoy having friends who want to have nerdy conversations with me. While I realize that AI technology is not perfect, I want to at least give AI experiments a chance. What do you think it will take for American culture to support self-driving cars as a way to achieve Vision Zero?
Future Blog Post
I have been working on the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Action Plan. Since the SS4A grant requires that I keep the media informed about my work, I am confident that I will have media interviews to share in the future.
As I kept thinking about the distance needed to create a healthy work-life balance, I realized that being further from work may not matter if the neighborhood where I live provides a robust social network when I am not at work. Since social network in 2023 usually means an online network, I need to clarify that I am referring to an in-person social network. I have also learned through chatting with friends that my thought evaluation process for determining a robust in-person social network may not be obvious to lay people. While I plan to share research studies to try to support my evaluation process, I am trying a new approach to share my thought process. I welcome your feedback.
Donald Appleyard’s 1969 Livable Streets Research
I think the below Streetfilms video, which is in Matt Turner’s blog post, about Donald Appleyard’s 1969 Livable Streets research in San Francisco should help readers understand my evaluation process for determining a robust in-person social network. Readers can learn even more by reading Donald Appleyard’s 1981 book titled Livable Streets. His son, Bruce, published Livable Streets 2.0 in 2020. I find it depressing that livable street issues still exist in 2023. Do motorists even realize (they may need to start by even thinking about the problem) how they are impacting in-person social networks when they are driving on neighborhood streets?
A few friends have asked me what I find “depressing” in the previous paragraph. Due to how American society usually does not openly discuss mental health issues like physical health issues and people with mental health issues do not always feel comfortable discussing their issues, I am thankful to have family and friends who are comfortable enough with me to ask about my mental health issues. Regarding what I find depressing about livable street issues still existing in 2023, I am depressed that not much has been done to resolve the known issues. While these issues are known to many planners, the issues may not be known to the general public. Since the general public likely is not aware of the issues, I believe planners like myself have the tough responsibility to educate them about the issues. I believe the needle will not be moved quickly to resolve the issues until the general public is aware that these issues exist.
I am hopeful that finding a neighborhood with a robust in-person social network will also help improve my mental health issues, which includes creating a healthier work-life balance. While some people may believe that a healthy work-life balance is created by just being in a living space when not at work, I believe being home is more than just a living space. As I will discuss further during the topic on “home territory”, access to people near my living space also contributes to creating a healthy work-life balance. Since I find it challenging to stop thinking about planning issues when not at work, I am hopeful that living in a neighborhood that has a vibrant in-person social network will help me to stop thinking about planning issues when not at work. I realize my vision of the perfect neighborhood does not exist. I can at least try to find a better neighborhood to live in.
In case readers do not watch the video, I want readers to focus on the below figure from Donald Appleyard’s 1969 research in San Francisco because it shows how light, moderate, and heavy traffic impact in-person social networks along one block on each street. The below quotes show the quotes that meant the most to me. What quotes mean the most to you? Do you relate to any of the quotes?
I feel it’s home. There are warm people on this street. I don’t feel alone.
Resident on street with light traffic
It’s not a friendly street — no one offers to help.
Resident on street with heavy traffic
Source: Donald Appleyard’s 1969 diagram of intra-street social connections. Lines represent specific social connections and dots identify where people were reported to gather.
While I am not sure why the below figure is not black and white like the other figures, the figure was still created by Donald Appleyard. I found the figure in Jason Kottke’s blog post. According to Donald Appleyard in his 1981 book, the home territory is defined as the “area over which you feel you have a sense of personal responsibility or stewardship”. Do you see how none of the home territories drawn by residents on the heavy traffic street actually crosses the street? Now let’s compare this with the home territories drawn by residents on the light traffic street. It’s awesome to see how many home territories on the light traffic street actually cross the street!
Source: Donald Appleyard
2011 Livable Streets Research
Research conducted in 2011 on three Bristol streets found similar results. As someone who is depressed when my neighbors just go from their cars to their homes without talking with me, I can relate to the below quote. Surprisingly, I do not live on a street with heavy traffic. Due to Bristol being more walkable than Petaluma, walkability may matter more in this context than how much traffic exists on the street.
people just go from their cars to their houses
Resident on street with heavy traffic
Source: Hart, J. and Parkhurst, G. (2011) Community interaction on three Bristol streets.
The Bristol study also researched each resident’s perspective on their “home territory”. The below figure shows very similar results to what Donald Appleyard found in his San Francisco study. Do you notice how residents living on the street with light traffic drew larger home territories than the residents living on the street with heavy traffic? Do you also notice that many of the home territories drawn by residents living on the street with light traffic actually cross the street? On the other hand, do you see how only one of the home territories drawn by residents living on the street with heavy traffic actually crosses the street?
“During the interviews, residents were asked to draw their ‘home territories’. Home territory was defined as the “area over which you feel you have a sense of personal responsibility or stewardship” (Appleyard, 1981). The results confirmed Appleyard’s findings about the relationship between traffic level and the range of home territories.”
I am adding Hayden Clarkin’s tweet about this 2021 German study because it relates to the above “home territory” drawing results or mind mapping. I believe the home territories were drawn by adults, so I am more heartbroken by seeing children that are negatively impacted by cars. I know many of my readers have children. What do you think your children would draw about their trip to school? Do you drive your children to school, or do they have the freedom to walk or bike to school? If you drive them to school, did you consider providing them with the freedom to walk or bike to school?
When asked to draw their trip to school, children who walk to school drew a more vibrant picture than those driven in a car. Every student should have the option to walk or bike to school in a safe manner, full stop. (via Margrit Stamm) pic.twitter.com/dlKEtrTRYJ
Before I discuss applying the research, I am aware that Petaluma is not San Francisco or Bristol. The land use context is important when applying real-world research. Due to Petaluma’s suburban land use, results from San Francisco’s urban land use may be too different to apply the research when reviewing suburban neighborhoods. One way that the land use difference could be resolved is by comparing the vehicles per day or per peak hour on each street. I plan to write more about this topic, so I could do this comparison in a future blog post.
With the above land use caveat and the understanding that my blog is not going through an academic peer-review process, I have not experienced any Petaluma neighborhoods that have a robust in-person social network. While I may not have enough time to research this further before my roommate finds someone to replace me on the lease, I am hopeful that I will find a Petaluma neighborhood with a robust in-person social network before deciding where to buy my first home within the next year or so. I try to look for silver linings, so I wanted to share the photo below that I took today in Downtown Petaluma. Despite the rain (yes, California has a wet season like Oregon), I enjoyed talking with this artist as she painted a downtown scene. This experience gave me hope that Petaluma has some in-person social networks.
Source: Ray Atkinson
In case livable street researchers read my blog, I want to challenge you to do further research using Donald Appleyard’s research by studying how in-person social networks change before and after a street has automobile traffic completely removed. This tweet helped me think of this challenge. Are you willing to accept the challenge?
Less through-traffic in a streets means: ⬆👫 more social interaction ⬆👩👩👧👧 more friends ⬆🏖 more places to gather. ⬆🏠 larger home territory (Appleyard, 1981)
I could not figure out a way to fit this 2019 Cairo research study into the above discussions of other research studies because the Cairo research did not compare automobile congestion on different streets. However, I wanted to share the Cairo results because robust in-person social networks along street blocks were studied. Even with many cars parked along the streets, I am impressed by the level of in-person social interactions. The map key shows how these interactions vary on Friday from 3-5pm and 8-10pm. What do you notice from the research results?
Behavior mapping of staying activities on the sidewalk segments of Ibrahim Street in Cairo
Future Blog Post
Since I desperately want to live in a home again that feels comfortable, I hope my next post will be about my new living situation. I wish I did not have to wait for my roommate to find someone she wants to live with before I can be removed from the lease. As I have done with previous moves, I plan to write about my commute. I may decide to stay in the same apartment complex, so I may not have a new commute. Either way, I plan to discuss further about whether my neighborhood and any other neighborhood in Petaluma has a robust in-person social network. While I am struggling to learn Spanish using Duolingo, I realize that I may need to improve my Spanish skills in order to join certain in-person social networks in Petaluma and elsewhere in California.
Oregon’s Stop As Yield for cyclists law (aka Idaho Stop Law) goes into effect this Wednesday, January 1. Since many people, including cyclists, appear to be confused about what Oregon Senate Bill 998 changes, I recommend this Bike Law post and please watch this video.
Even though the new law has safety benefits, most comments I have read on mainstream Oregon news have been from frustrated motorists. Many of these motorists shared how they believe that cyclists already do not follow the laws. Despite the safety benefits from Idaho’s use of the Stop As Yield Law, many of these motorists shared how they supported the Oregon SB 998 because they believe it will kill cyclists for rolling through intersections. While I try to always follow the laws, I frequently do a rolling stop when biking because coming to a complete stop at every stop sign would be exhausting.
I actually had a motorist yell and argue with me when I accidentally did a rolling stop while biking through a stop sign on the Trolley Trail north of the Clackamas River in Gladstone, Oregon. Even though mainstream Oregon news is helping to educate everyone about what the new law allows and prohibits, I expect many motorists to harass me about legally doing a rolling stop while biking.
While I took the below photo about another bike issue in Virginia, I am curious whether a similar sign could reduce how many motorists harass me about legally doing a rolling stop. I could put “Bike (symbol) Rolling Stop Is Legal SB 998”. What do you think?
As someone who studied transportation planning and engineering abroad in the Netherlands, I feel the need to share that stop signs are rare in the Netherlands. Yielding (shown with shark’s teeth painted on and built into the street) is the default on streets where there would be stop signs in the US. Since the Netherlands tries to avoid sign clutter, yield signs are often not used with the shark’s teeth. The US has too much sign clutter, so I wish the US would also try to reduce sign clutter.
While my focus through May will be on studying for the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Exam, I may take a break to write a follow-up post about how biking changed for me after SB 998 goes into effect on January 1. Hopefully, motorists will harass me less when I legally do a rolling stop while biking and I will not need to create a sign for my bike to educate motorists about SB 998.
Since I believe most of the focus throughout the US to plan for electric-assist dockless bikeshare and scootershare has been on the largest cities, I feel the need to push for more regional planning. My employer, which is Clackamas Community College (CCC), has three campuses that are located in three suburban cities within the Portland region. While I am still surprised to be living car-free and working in America’s suburbia, this experience has provided me with a unique perspective on why regional transportation planning is crucial.
As the below map shows, Portland received responses from throughout the region to its 2018 e-scooter pilot user survey. Even though Portland’s e-scooter pilot was legally limited to Portland, I saw e-scooters as far south as Oregon City. I am not sure whether the companies or their customers were fined for parking scooters outside of Portland. While CCC and jurisdictions within Clackamas County are nervous about allowing e-scooters and e-bikes, is it feasible to ban e-scooters and e-bikes in Clackamas County when people will likely keep riding them south from Portland?
Through serving on the City of Oregon City’s Transportation Advisory Committee and Clackamas County’s Pedestrian/Bikeway Advisory Committee and talking with residents, I have learned that many Clackamas County residents are resistant to Portland-style transportation thinking and do not want anything to be planned. They believe planning will bring change to their desired small town and country lifestyles, so they have asked me and government staff to stop all planning efforts. Even though I tell residents that e-bikeshare and e-scootershare could reduce traffic congestion and demand for auto parking, which are their concerns, they keep telling me that they only want to widen roads and build more auto parking so they can get places faster by driving. They do not believe me when I tell them that e-bikeshare and e-scootershare have been proven in other places to reduce auto trips and increase non-auto trips.
I realize the residents that want to drive likely will not use e-bikeshare and e-scootershare. However, it has been challenging to convince them that other residents like me want to use these shared mobility services. People who want to keep driving will benefit from this because they likely will see reduced traffic congestion and demand for auto parking. As the below map shows, few people currently bike in Clackamas County, which is located south of Portland. This is a major reason why it is hard to convince auto-dependent residents that enough people will use shared mobility services in Clackamas County. I would like to show a similar map for scooter trips, but Portland only released scooter data for trips in Portland.
I experienced a similar public backlash when my employer, which was MetroBike, was hired by Montgomery County, MD to expand Capital Bikeshare into suburban areas. Since Capital Bikeshare uses stations and bikes cannot be locked within being docked at a station, Montgomery County could have asked MetroBike to stop the expansion. While some dockless bikeshare and scootershare companies have tried to encourage their customers to park in designated areas, the bikes and scooters are not required to be parked in these areas. This is the main reason why I believe dockless bikeshare and scootershare are coming to Clackamas County whether or not the residents want it. Even if Clackamas County requires the companies to remove their bikes and scooters, bikes and scooters will likely keep coming to Clackamas County until Portland forces the companies to leave the region.
As a planner and someone who wants more transportation choices, I want to be prepared for bikeshare and scootershare. While the public may believe it is not possible to plan for this, I believe it is possible as long as my partners are willing to keep working with me to create and implement a plan. Even though bikeshare and scootershare are quickly evolving, I have found this resource to be useful in my planning effort.
I have only been back in Oregon for eight months, but I am excited to share that I have quickly become a leader in the planning process to prepare the Portland region for bikeshare and scootershare. Since I want to make sure the planning process includes an equity lens and integrates smoothly with other transit services, my partners include TriMet (Portland region’s transit), Metro (Portland region’s MPO), several non-profit equity community groups, and several cities and counties. While Portland has been working with Ride Report to analyze its data, my suburban partners have been evaluating whether and how to include private companies in our planning process.
Portland plans to award permits and launch E-Scooter Pilot 2.0 for a year early this spring and expand Biketown (bikeshare) to include e-bikes this fall when it renews its contract with Motivate, which is owned by Lyft. Since Uber owns JUMP, which provides the bikes for Biketown, it should be interesting to see how Uber and Lyft work together run Biketown. I have never seen two competing companies run the same business together!
I’m following up on my last post, which discussed Capital Bikeshare and dockless bikeshare in the Washington, DC region. While I agree that dockless bikeshare companies should be held accountable to making sure their bikes are parked correctly, why aren’t dockless automobile companies being held to the same standard? Dockless automobiles have been parked illegally for decades. Where is the public outrage? Why is most of the public outrage focused on dockless bikes?
As a resident of Arlington, I have a unique location to watch Capital Bikeshare “compete” with dockless bikeshare. I put “compete” in quotes because the mutual goal of Capital Bikeshare and the five dockless bikeshare companies is to get more people biking. However, some bike planners believe dockless bikeshare will pull enough people from Capital Bikeshare that it won’t be able to compete with dockless bikeshare.
Since bikeshare is still new to most Americans, I want to make sure everyone knows the difference between dock-based and dockless bikeshare. As the below photo shows, dock-based bikeshare systems require the bike to be docked at a station. Capital Bikeshare is the main dock-based bikeshare system that operates in the DC region.
Photo: Ray Atkinson
As the below photo shows, dockless bikeshare systems have bikes that are self-locked. The five dockless bikeshare companies operating in the DC region are Jump, LimeBike, Mobike, ofo, and Spin. While Jump is the only company with e-bikes, LimeBike and Spin announced last week that they plan to start offering e-bikes soon.
Photo: Ray Atkinson
While all six bikeshare systems have apps, which are shown below, it’s possible to use Capital Bikeshare without the app by purchasing a pass at the kiosk. Since not everyone has a smartphone, this reduces the barrier to bikeshare. In addition, only Capital Bikeshare can be used by paying cash. Many low-income people don’t have a credit or debit card, so this gives them access to using bikeshare.
I have a unique location to watch this bikeshare situation because of how the permitting process is unfolding across the DC region. While Capital Bikeshare is permitted to operate throughout the region, only DC has given permits to all five dockless bikeshare companies. As this Greater Greater Washington post explains, DC and Montgomery County, MD had an easier process than local jurisdictions in Virginia to create pilot dockless bikeshare programs because they are governed by Home Rule. Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, which means state law preempts local law. Local jurisdictions must receive permission from the General Assembly to act on local matters. Yes, Maryland is also a Dillon Rule state. However, Montgomery County became the first county in Maryland to adopt a home rule charter in 1948.
Since DC is geographically small and dockless bikeshare companies have been struggling to inform their customers that they don’t have permits to operate outside of DC, I have been watching how human behavior and government processes react to this issue. Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, which is impacting the ability of local jurisdictions to create pilot dockless bikeshare programs and regulate the dockless bikeshare companies. This is why Virginia doesn’t officially have dockless bikeshare yet. Arlington wrote this blog post to educate people about the different types of bikeshare. I found the following statements interesting.
“the six-month trial of dockless bikeshare is entirely a DC project at this time. The operators do not have an agreement with Arlington County so their operating location is within Washington, DC borders.
If you see a bike in Arlington, you can contact the operator to collect their bike to take back into DC, or you can ride the bike back into the operating location (JUMP bike offers a $1 credit every when a bike is ridden back into the operating area).
This is all still very early in the experimental phase so there is no telling right now how policies could change.”
If this wasn’t confusing enough, only four of the five dockless bikeshare companies have permits from Montgomery County, MD to operate in Silver Spring and Takoma Park. I believe the fifth company, Jump, has decided not to expand to Montgomery County yet because it wants to focus on DC. None of the dockless bikeshare companies have permits to operate elsewhere in DC’s Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Plus, they can’t operate on National Park Service (NPS) property. This is important because the National Mall and regional trails like the Mount Vernon Trail are owned by the NPS.
Map of dockless bikeshare’s service area in Silver Spring and Takoma Park, MD. Source: WashCycle
Even if the NPS gave permits to the dockless bikeshare companies to operate on its property, e-bikes are banned from NPS-owned trails. However, I haven’t seen this ban enforced and it doesn’t appear to be discouraging many people from riding e-bikes on trails. I am curious to see whether this controversial NPS ban becomes more heated as LimeBike and Spin join Jump in having e-bikes.
Since many regions throughout the US are working on dockless bikeshare regulations and permit programs, I want to share the below regulation breakdown from Twelve Tone Consulting. The North American Bikeshare Association published the Dockless Bikeshare Regulation Preliminary Guidance in January 2018.
Dockless bikeshare parking issues have been reported in many locations, so look at Dockless Bike Fail’s tweets for photo evidence. What do you think about the issues I have discussed in this post?
The power of social media, especially Facebook, helped me learn about respectability politics. I had never heard of respectability politics before today. As my below Facebook post shows, I thought I was helping to improve bike advocacy efforts by policing badly behaved cyclists.
For example, I saw a cyclist go through every stoplight on Fairfax Drive in Arlington, VA last Wednesday during afternoon rush hour. Since I’m tired of hearing well behaved cyclists and motorists tell me how badly behaved cyclists are ruining the image of all cyclists, I tried to chase down the badly behaved cyclist and tell him to stop breaking the law.
While I wasn’t able to catch up with the badly behaved cyclist, I’m thankful I posted this experience on social media. My friends were able to educate me about respectability politics and why it doesn’t work. Even though I was convinced I was doing the right thing by policing badly behaved cyclists, I’m thankful my friends stuck to their reasoning and waited patiently for me to show them that I understood their viewpoint. It took a few days for me to stop arguing my viewpoint and finally understand their viewpoint. Now I can share their reasoning with others that may not fully understand respectability politics.
In case you haven’t heard of it before, respectability politics “refers to attempts by marginalized groups to police their own members and show their social values as being continuous, and compatible, with mainstream values rather than challenging the mainstream for what they see as its failure to accept difference.” Instead of policing cyclists, my friends suggested I encourage people to do the right thing. As Zvi Leve, who is an experienced cyclist living in Montreal, wrote, “I find that positive reinforcement is a far more effective strategy to encourage people to ‘do the right thing’.” Zvi also shared the following CityLab article, which discusses Sweden’s Vision Zero approach to education and enforcement.
Speaking of Vision Zero, I’m currently working with GGWash‘s staff to publish my next blog post about why Sustainable Safety, which is the Dutch alternative to Vision Zero, is more effective than Vision Zero.
0 to 100 