A Place of Sense

I’m not always happy with Cost/Benefit Analyses to justify infrastructure investments.  Induced economic activity has especially frustrated me because I don’t believe that an extra highway exchange can be justified just because it spawns a Wal-Mart.  Too often we see these studies that proclaim a net benefit when in reality the private sector gains a new source of profit while shifting cost and risk to the public (similar to the privatization of Parking Programs).

An interesting case study comes to us from the nation of Iraq.  After losing much of their infrastructure in the war and aftermath the people are now struggling to restore basic services.  One key issue is electrical power reliability.  Here in Indianapolis it is major news when we lose the power grid for any length of time, so I hope nobody ignores the suffering of Iraqis who spend the majority of each day with none or intermittent power.

A side effect of this has been a huge market for small-scale electrical power generators.  Communities are chipping in together to purchase their own power infrastructure.  So, the destruction of Iraqi power infrastructure has induced demand for generators, but is this a good thing?

Energy security in its most basic form

Well, diesel generators don’t come cheap, and neither does their fuel. It seems fairly obvious the people aren’t investing in generators because they want to become more independent of public infrastructure.  No, they are purchasing them because they want a reliable electrical supply and their government can’t provide it.

This is a similar condition to 20th century US transportation system.  As cities and towns began dismantling their public transit systems, Americans began purchasing cars in like nowhere else in the world.  In this case, a lot of people were forced to invest in transportation because the government failed to provide it. And auto sales thrived on the uncertain future of public transit.

Very few people benefit when public infrastructure is allowed to fail.  After all, you can only add so many cars to the system before the high costs of maintaining all those vehicles, roads, and bridges begins to outweigh any benefits we once got from them.

Simply stated, collectively owned public transit is a great solution to our transportation needs. In fact, the service cuts in Chicago and NYC transit have shown how declining investment in transit can be a disaster.  If we want to see the right kind of economic growth taking place in our cities, then its time to fight for heavy investment in public transit.

Cars can never provide the right density to make cities livable or infrastructure affordable

A good framework for this problem is the Parable of the Broken Window.  Basically, you don’t create value by destroying something, even if new economic activity is generated.  In this case, Americans did gain a highway system and millions upon millions of new cars and new jobs (manufacturing and road repair), but losing our public transit systems means we lost our urban way of life.  A proper accounting of the situation should include all costs, especially the hidden and social ones.

For more information on Indianapolis’ proposed transit system, see Indy Connect.  If you want to know what transit can do for our cities, Human Transit has a great discussion.  If we want economic growth in our cities without endless sprawl, transit is the best answer.

I attended an Indy Connect meeting this Tuesday, February 23rd at Pike High School (Northwest Indy).  The Indy Connect is a joint venture between the Indy MPO, CIRTA, and IndyGo.  The meetings are the first step towards the creation of a new Long-Range Transportation Plan.

These meetings are a great opportunity to meet and discuss issues with a group of people that determine the future of Indianapolis transportation.  I strongly encourage anyone interested in the state of transportation in our city, including pedestrian, biking, rail transit, bus transit, and automobility to attend one of these meetings.  The planners need feedback to ensure they are delivering the best plan possible.

The planners are real people and not politicians.  There is no need to argue with them or blame them for the traffic jam that happened on the way to work.  Their job is to interpret the values of the community and form a comprehensive strategy to meet the region’s needs.  It is clear that the values of our region are changing.  While many continue to argue for more and wider roads, the MPO realizes that there is no strategy that can meet the region’s needs that does not involve multiple modes of transportation. 

I have some suggestions to help anyone interested in attending on of these meetings to get the most from their experience.  First of all, come prepared to discuss.  The room is filled with stations representing important issues, such as biking or pedestrian plans, with planners hosting each one.  This is everyone’s chance to discuss these issues in-depth with the planners.  I suggest bringing a list of questions about topics that matter.

Next, come prepared to fill out questionnaires and surveys.  Each station has a special survey for people to complete.  The typical survey asks people to prioritize their concerns about different issues.  At the bottom of each survey is a free response area where people can write down anything they want.

Finally, feel free to disregard the static.  Some people love to say “NO!” and these events are no exception.  It is unlikely that anyone with this attitude will change their mind, so concentrate instead on how to learn from the planners and how to communicate priorities of the public to them in a civil manner.

Many people are now familiar with the MDC hearing examiner’s recent denial of a variance.  Current coverage on IBJ’s Property Lines, Huston St Racing (w/photos), and Urban Indy.  This variance would have allowed a renovation of an old urban property consistent with its original and proposed use.  Basically, the developers wanted to eliminate the requirement for off-street parking.

The neighboring property owners were worried this would force the tenants to park illegally in nearby surface lots.  After review of the case and a private meeting with the interested parties, the Hearing Examiner concluded that no compromise was forthcoming and denied the petition for a variance.

I think the Indianapolis planning staff summarized the issue quite well in their analysis, which recommended *approval* of the petition.  Here is the planning staff’s opinion:

Urban sites should be developed to the highest intensity possible. To require this site to meet the required off-street parking standards, would require the demolition of a portion of the building or acquisition of adjacent sites. A practical difficulty is met by this request since the site is fully developed. Additionally, there are several IndyGo bus routes that travel along Meridian Street and nearby streets that substantially reduce the need for parking. Finally, it is a common and preferred planning method that little or no off-street parking be added to a reuse of an inner city site. If residents require off-street parking, there are three off-street parking sites directly adjacent to the site to the north, northeast and east that could meet that need.

MDC documents are here (p. 85), results from the hearing are here (p. 3).

I think it is time that Indianapolis accepts that off-street parking requirements are the bane of true urban renewal.  The minimum parking requirements are a senseless way to devalue our CBD.  They are an existential threat to urban life, and therefore the core identity of Indianapolis.

Someone raised an interesting question on the IBJ website:  What are the requirements for becoming a hearing examiner in Indianapolis?  I suggest we remake the qualifications process, and that it only have 1 component:  survive in Indy for one month without a car, and then we’ll take you.  A human’s eye view of the city might do some of these people some good.

One of the commenters on Huston Street Racing offered an apology of the Examiners actions, stating:

He is a thoughtful and even-handed person, and a thorough lawyer. He is not a dolt or hack, as portrayed on the IBJ comments thread. …  It appears to be his belief that someone will part with some parking spaces if offered enough money to do so. 

All of this may be true, I won’t dispute it.  But off-street parking should *never* have become an issue with this property.  I am not sure the examiner even read the planner’s report, because it pretty clearly laid down the rationale against parking requirements and why they wouldn’t apply in this case anyways.  Just in case anyone didn’t want to read the full report, or even my summary, just read the part in bold above.  One sentence is all you need to know.

This situation is yet another lost opportunity for a representative of the City of Indianapolis to address the real infrastructural problems that have ruined the city.  Indianapolis I love you, but you’re bringing me down.

Investments in infrastructure are a big topic right now. Infrastructure investments create local jobs, they can lower the cost of doing business for the private sector, and they can provide quality of life improvements like clean water and sewage treatment plants. Currently, there is loud debate on all sides of the issue. For the sake of this entry, let us assume that all debaters have honest intentions.

The tools of the debate are well-known by now. Proponents argue on the side of benefits, detractors argue the costs of the work. Both sides have merit, so we compromise and ask for a “cost-benefit analysis” (CBA) to break down the project into facts and figures rather than emotions and promises.

The CBA is a great tool. It is widely used in business and government agencies to compare different alternatives. Key assumptions made in the CBA are:

• Anything can be represented in present day cost, even human life and welfare
• Doing nothing means that present trends will continue
• Potential costs and benefits can be given a real value

A cost-benefit analysis is the kind of thing that engineers love, because it can provide an answer to a difficult question. Engineers sometimes go further and claim that the CBA can prove which option is the right course of action. I don’t trust the CBA analysis that much. There are plenty of ways to skew the results intentionally or introduce bias unintentionally.

A recent example of the CBA being used in debate is the national High-Speed Rail (HSR) network proposals. The analysis was taken up by Edward Glaeser of Harvard/NYT in his set of articles “Is High-Speed Rail a Good Public Investment?” but his conclusions were called into question in the Infrastructurist article “Why Edward Glaeser Got it Wrong: Re-Running the Numbers on High-Speed Rail.” Both articles show the process is very sensitive to initial assumptions and uncertainties.

But the reason I write this is not to point out the difficulties in using this type of analysis, it is to say that it should not be used at all. Government should not be run as a for-profit businesses. Basing decisions solely on cost-benefit analyses, opportunity costs, and return on investment projections means that the cities are rewarding companies and wealthy property owners exclusively.

The amount of wealth generated after infrastructure improvements in a nice part of town will be much higher than the same infrastructure improvements in a below average part of town. The strict use of CBA ensures that poor neighborhoods get bulldozed for suburban highway access, workers ride inexpensive buses rather than rail systems, and pedestrians are only allowed in shopping districts. Should this type of thinking dictate our infrastructure investments?

If the only measure of a project’s worth is how much investment will be generated, then civic governments will fail to provide infrastructure to their citizens equitably. Cities need to remember that they have a duty, enshrined in our founding principles, that all are created equal and all deserve equal treatment.

There have been many transit projects, brownsfield and pollution cleanup projects, and neighborhood development plans derailed by short-sighted opposition. Some people refer to projects that don’t pay for themselves as unacceptable welfare programs, but engineers have always had an ethical responsibility to “hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.” Why are we allowed to abdicate this responsibility when the ROI doesn’t look good?

The Indianapolis Midfield Terminal is a lesson in successful long-term infrastructure planning. The site of the airport was picked in the 1930′s, the “temporary” terminal was built in 1957, the upgraded control tower was finished in 2006, and the current terminal was finished in 2008. The current location was picked over 70 years ago, and the wait has been worth it.

South elevation and main entry

As is customary, I would like to refer readers to my fellow Indianapolis A/E bloggers and their thoughts on the new airport:
Urbanophile (start here and find links to all 7 pieces)
Circles & Squares (pre-construction review here, great photos too)

The new terminal is a great piece of infrastructure because it has made the Indianapolis Airport one the most convenient, comfortable, and successful airports ever. The iconic structural elements including the exposed roof trusses, vertical bowstring trusses, and eccentric braces give it an open, industrial grandeur. The structural system is easy to comprehend and the building feels safe and comfortable inside.

Interior of plaza (construction)

One of my favorite structural features is the column/brace system supporting the main roof. Depending on which direction is considered, the members will act as a column or an eccentric brace, and no moment connections were required. The trusses above did require a little bit of extra detailing, I’m sure, but everything looks great and I’m sure the system performance had to meet strict requirements with all those windows.

Brace columns and skylights

Pin connections at column base

I asked the original designers about these columns. I never got a clear answer about what seismic classification was used, but I would bet they considered them eccentric braces. The connections were designed as conventional pins per AISC specifications. They pointed out that while the trusses and braces were different from typical construction, the contractors were experienced with this type of construction and thus construction problems were limited.

Another unique element used on the airport is the vertical bowsting truss. These trusses are used on the huge expanse of glass fronting the passenger drop-off area, resisting the large wind forces that develop on this face. The open web design matches the architectural style of the interior, and the ratio of open-ness allows natural light to filter throughout the building.

Bowstring window trusses near public plaza (construction)

Vertical trusses near front entry (construction)

Much of the project was LEED registered (still awaiting USGBC confirmation), and it is clear that some sustainable thinking went into the project. A good writeup of the Airport’s efforts towards acquiring LEED certification is here, or you can visit Blackburn Architects who were responsible for managing the LEED documentation (but you must use IE not Firefox).

Roof detailing on eastern side (construction)

Braced column supports and art space below (construction)

This was the first terminal to open under the new regulations passed since the 2001 terrorist attacks. A great deal of planning went into ensuring this airport would be able to meet all of the new regulations enacted to tighten security. Several areas of the airport are hardened against natural and manmade hazards, and new technology rapidly screens problems out of the system in case anything strange is found.

Tornado shelter entry

The front approach from Interstate 70 is convenient, and the traffic arrangement on the airport property is simple yet logical. Economy and long-term parking is the first option, and it sits in a field dominated by the new control tower. The tower makes it easy for people to orient themselves, even with the tall berms obscuring any other visual landmarks.

Air traffic control tower

Next up is the parking garage. This pre-stressed concrete structure has some really cool features that raise it above the banality of most parking structures. Several locations are high-lighted by tensile membrane roofs. The corkscrew vehicle ramps add flair to the southern corners, while the central pedestrian area is covered by another fabric roof. This central pedestrian area is actually quite attractive. There are automated people movers, glass enclosed elevators, kinetic sculptures, and a ground transportation center directly across from the main terminal.

Corkscrew vehicle ramp membrane structure

Tensile membrane roof over parking structure

The bridge structure linking the parking structure and the terminal is basically a trussed pedestrian bridge. Automated people movers and a central aisle are covered with an amazing bit of public art. This multimedia installation involves sound, light, movement, and sense of awareness that makes the traverse across the bridge an interesting experience. The bridge delivers travelers to a mezzanine level with escalators heading up or down.

Pedestrian bridge and front entry (construction)

The up option delivers another great experience as the expansive main plaza opens to view as you raise up to the main floor level. This room contains all of the ticketing areas and while there is no easy way to find where each airline is but the area is small enough, and interesting enough, to encourage a bit of exploration.

Main ticketing and entry lobby (construction)

On the way towards the gates and security areas is the circular plaza that establishes a special place within the airport. The circular public area is surrounded by retail and food establishments, which is one of the best public spaces in the city. The translucent roof panels add natural light to the space, and the hanging arts offers a visual reward for looking upwards.

Sky plaza

My favorite part, however, is the elevated catwalk that rings the public space. This links the administrative areas on the east and west wings, but it adds a new dimension of walkable space that really helps to enclose the area. It is a shame that the city has not learned how to apply these concepts to the cityscape, there are many places that could be reclaimed for pedestrians in a simlar manner.

Public space lined with shops

Upper walkway with torque-tube (construction)

Passengers can go through security at either concourse, each has plenty of queuing room and the latest equipment that speeds people through the checks. This in contrast to the previous Indianapolis security experience, and to many other airport terminals around the country which were not built to handle the new security provisions. Both security check areas have a large mosaic that adds visual interest.

View of the sky plaza and terminal from the tarmac (construction)

The A/B terminals offer a more typical experience, each gate has a seating area and the central area is taken up by automated people movers. The best part about these wings is the high ceilings and exposed structural members. The roof trusses and use of glass really shows the modernity of the airport. Once again, this is a night and day contrast with the previous Indianapolis terminal. While the overall feeling is still an industrial and impersonal one, the space is less depressing and fills travelers with confidence rather than despair.

Terminal A with Automated People Mover

Terminal structure with eccentric braces and steel trusses

Incoming passengers can easily find their way to the baggage claim. The automated baggage handling system takes up most of the space below the main floor. The system quickly routes each incoming and outgoing bag to the correct destination. It is so quick that it is possible for your bag to be waiting for you at the baggage claim before you are even on your way down the escalator. Siemens designed and installed the baggage system (more info here).

Braced steel frames and mechanical systems in lower level (construction)

One small turn within the 13,000 foot baggage handling system (construction)

The passenger pickup and dropoff area has been used to showcase even more structural elements. The cantilevered bus stops are similar to units covering the ticketing areas, tying the different areas together with a cohesive architectural style. The pickup/dropoff area has a great vista to the south, but it doesn’t feel too open because the large glass backdrop provides a sense of enclosure.

Lower level exit from baggage claim to ground transportation

In general, one of the reasons that the airport seems so large is that people move through it so quickly that there are no large crowds of unhappy travelers. The limited time I have spent in the airport has been full of the typical travel issues: tickets lost in the computer system, baggage fees, expensive long-term parking, and neck cramps after falling asleep on the plane. But, it is all much more bearable when you aren’t trapped in a building that looks as much like a military bunker as it does a functional piece of transportation infrastructure.

Baggage claim area (construction)

Baggage claim area

The airport managers realize that long-term planning allowed Indianapolis to accommodate the future growth of the airport corresponding to the growth of the city. They have further realized that expansion may be necessary in the future. This future expansion is provided for by adding extra gates in the A/B concourses. Room for an extra runway is located across the interstate.

The unused space between the parking structure and the nearest parking lot is expected to be taken up by a special-purpose hotel and convention center. I have even heard that there is an on-site location that can be used to link up to a mass transit system. If you don’t think that is the definition of long-term planning, then you haven’t spent much time in Indianapolis.

The automobile has been an interesting development in the history of man. Replacing the horse with a machine that can propel itself has certainly given us some great opportunities.

While horses present an inconvenient form of transportation, the modern automobile doesn’t exactly propel itself without needs. Whatever resources a horse may require, a car has a much more extensive list. Gasoline, parts, maintenance, and most importantly lots of roads. Sure its got an engine, but you won’t get far without those trillions of dollars invested in our highway network. In the end, I find both horses and cars a great nuisance.

The freedom of transportation that a car offers is great, but the sad fact is that I am carrying 3,000 lb of useless metal with me everywhere I go. And then I have to find somewhere to park when I arrive. The parking issue becomes very important in large cities. This interesting post by frumination shows what NYC/Manhattan would be like if it was trying to accommodate vehicular traffic every day (via Infrastructurist). Basically mass transit is essential to a city like NYC. Just as elevators are essential to the development of tall buildings.

The US Bureau of Labor releases information how average US consumers spend their income. A recent graphic from Visual Economics summed it up quite nicely, we are spending over 1/6 of our income on car transportation each year.

A lot of people complain about the high cost of public transit system proposals, but it’s obviously not more expensive than cars. If we assume that the entire population of Indianapolis, roughly 800,000 people, were to trade in their vehicles for public transit then we would free up ($8758/2.5)*800,000 = $3B per year to invest in other strategies. I bet we could find a solution with that level of funding. It won’t ever happen, but it’s not impossible to imagine.

Egocentrism is “tendency to perceive, understand and interpret the world in terms of the self”. This issue exists in every human, but it is important that we realize that we see the world with a limited knowledge filtered through our past experiences. To be effective designers we must continually strive to break through the limitations of our own experiences and see the world from other viewpoints.

To be clear, I am not talking about selfishness. I am talking about realizing that one’s own experiences are not necessarily representative of an aggregate population. Offering experiences as an argument falls under “anecdotal evidence” and usually is not important when discussing policy. Public policy must be based on scientifically verifiable evidence that has undergone statistical reduction.

However, in a lot of arguments regarding infrastructure development, either local plans or national policy, anecdotal evidence is given so much credibility that it overwhelms the topic under debate. One common argument against investment in urban landforms and public transit options is that the current system works as it already exists. The argument goes something like this: “I can ride my bicycle down the arterial street / run on the street where there is no sidewalk / take a cab anywhere in the city, so everyone else can as well.” These arguments are obviously egocentric, they assume that the abilities of a single person (the egocentrist) are shared by the population at large. This is not the case. There are many people, throughout the US, who are prevented from access either by ability or income level.

A healthy urban population includes people of all abilities. Universal design and Design for All recommend that we consider the entire population when designing a building, spatial environment, or anything that people interact with (like doorhandles, furniture, etc.). This is part of our ethical duty as engineers and designers, we have been tasked by society to design our systems for even the least able citizens. Let us commit to establishing inclusive policies of infrastructure development.

There are many reasons beyond moral and ethical responsibilities to incorporate Universal Design practices. Economic studies suggest that when more of the population has access to the cityscape, there are more customers, workers, and economic activity. You are raising the de facto density of the city without teardowns and rebuilds. Quality of life also improves when egocentrism is abandoned. People are happier, they feel empowered and included, and it is another small step towards sharing Earth’s resources equitably with the other 7 billion people on the planet.

With our current debate over climate change policy likely to be derailed by climate change skepticism, maybe it’s time we start looking at ways to accommodate climate change rather than preventing it. Civil engineers will be called upon to perform some of the largest public works projects since the Panama Canal all along the US Coastal areas, just to keep the status quo (i.e. not “waterworld”).

So, if you think “Cap & Trade” policy is expensive, just imagine how much money it will cost to do this in every port city of the US. Honorable Mention awards also listed here. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.

The “bridge to nowhere” is a classic concept in transportation structures. Even taking a minor role in the 2008 presidential election debate, the bridge to nowhere always faces opposition from those not expecting to benefit. For some reason, people view these bridges as an excuse for the government to reward construction firms that have acquired political favor.

The Atlanta Downtown Connector gives residents a chance to catch up with each other on a daily basis

What people should realize, however, is that everyone benefits when these bridges are built way out in the Middle of Nowhere, USA. For the past half century, citizens have been held ransom to the whims of people like Robert Moses (“cities are for traffic”), whereby neighborhood have been demolished for the purpose of moving machines. Even historically significant neighborhoods, such as Martin Luther King Jr’s neighborhood, have been cut in two by highway plotters.

the city planner at work

Here in Indianapolis, the “Crossroads of America”, we have sacrificed much of our downtown area to ease access to our tall building and parking garages. Imagine all of the historic neighborhoods that could have been saved if only we had convinced the heavy-handed and delusional city leaders to focus their attentions on building a bridge worthy of the Circle City somewhere else, maybe just outside the city limits for example.

an aptly named local establishment

This is the great benefit of bridges to nowhere: they are built away from cities. The discredited theory of Urban Renewal sponsored by megalomaniacal politicians is no longer necessary! Elected officials have finally discovered how to subsidize their friends without ruining our neighborhoods. In fact, Brasilia may be the most progressive historic preservation project ever undertaken.

Now the NYT has an article complaining about rural development receiving all the ARRA attention. Don’t complain, celebrate! At least nobody is threatening eminent domain for a new shopping mall in your neighborhood.

The Urban Planning Scholar Series hosted a Complete Streets (also wikipedia entry) training session on June 29-30th in Indianapolis. The event was split into two parts: 1) the traditional 2 hour lecture, and 2) a full 1.5 day workshop on winning complete street policies in your local jurisdictions. Because AARP sponsored the event, admission was free. I only attended the first session, because work was slow in the office, but not that slow.

The lecture was given by Randy Neufeld, a complete streets strategic management consultant, who focused on the basics of complete streets and why it benefits so many people. He also discussed what the complete streets program is not attempting to do:

• put a prescriptive design manual in place
• put bike lanes on every street
• reduce traffic capacity

One concept of complete streets is that an optimized traffic system that considers only automobiles is actually not optimized at all. It forces everyone to drive, even for small trips. This results in more cars on the roadway thus increasing travel times. By designing the roadways for all users (especially those who don’t drive cars) the traffic load is reduced and other users of the road including pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit users have full access.

Perhaps the best argument I heard during the lecture was that Complete Streets policies encourage economic activity. Pedestrians and bicyclists can now access stores and shops that they would not have felt safe traveling to without the new policies. Also, because fewer parking spaces are necessary, the policies encourage denser development with less wasted space.

Complete street policies are based around the idea that there is no prescriptive solution that works in all situations. The street designers are tasked with a new policy that “ensures that transportation agencies routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users”. For more examples go the the Complete Streets Flickr page.

One important item addressed by the complete streets policy is that of access to public transit options. I have often seen cities invest in buses with the capacity to handle disabled transit users. However, if the bus stops are not set up correctly, the system has failed. Just outside my office where I work there is a pitiful bus stop without a curb cut and with no sidewalks nearby. In combination with the narrow road and steep slopes on each side of the road the safety for pedestrians is reduced significantly. It is virtually impossible to use this road with a wheelchair.

A world class bus stop for our world class city

Not an inviting streetscape for pedestrians

This area provides a huge amount of jobs, but the message it sends is that only cars are welcome. Even when I attempt to cross the narrow street for lunch it is a risky procedure. There are absolutely no provisions for people in this commercial park. This is exactly the kind of thing that complete street policies are trying to avoid. It will be quite expensive to retrofit this area, but it could have been provided at little cost in the beginning. I imagine the city and the property owners will resist upgrades in this area for as long as possible, contributing to pedestrian risk and economic segregation.