SEPTA bus lines by ridership.

Our friends at MOTU (Mayor’s Office of Transportation and Utilities) created this very attractive infographic about SEPTA’s 10 busiest bus routes as part of their ongoing Tidbit Tuesday series (if you don’t read this already, check out their blog).

Anything strike you about this ranking? A few things stand out to us as nerdy planners:

1) 5 of the 10 lines do not pass through Center City. The 18, 52, 60, 26, and G never come anywhere close to the city’s highest concentration of jobs. This is not a criticism at all. It’s just a reminder for those of us whose professional lives do center on Center City that SEPTA’s system is not just about getting people in and out of the core. It used to be more so, as is evidenced by the spoke-like design of our rail system, but as land use patterns have changed, following preferences about where people work and live, buses have been able to respond as our most nimble mode of public transit. 

2) Those same 5 lines DO connect to either the Broad Street Line or Market-Frankford Line. Backtracking slightly on our first point, one reason for high ridership on these lines is surely their connections to rapid transit service. In transit planning, we talk about commutes in terms of seats (i.e. the number of vehicles you (hopefully) sit on to reach your destination). For many folks, it appears these buses are part of their 2-seat ride on their way to the Center City/University City/Temple University job hubs.

3) Are there investments we can make to expand the capacity and improve the efficiency of these highly-traveled lines? If you frequent any of these routes, you know that many of them are running at or even well above capacity during peak hours. What does this mean? Well, on the plus side it means they’re certainly going places people want and need to be. It also suggests that current levels of service aren’t keeping pace with demand, and/or that the concentrations of population or employment along these lines is at a density that could support an enhanced level of service. Short of introducing new modes (20th street subway, anyone?), what can we do to improve service? The answer is, of course, that it depends! Are there places we could give the bus its own travel lane for a stretch? Are there places where a re-located or eliminated stop would speed up service? Is it possible to add more buses to meet demand or are we maxed out? Would a modified route allow the bus to run more quickly? And in places where we are truly in a pinch, might our forth-coming bikeshare program be able to absorb some of this passenger volume?

Our District Plans try to explore this menu of options in cases where we know a route is not serving its riders optimally. The idea to run transit through the City Branch in the Central District, for example, is exciting not just for the potential to create new service, but also for its theoretical ability to provide a traffic-free corridor for existing bus services. To implement this or any other change requires follow-up studies and (of course) available dollars, but the first step is knowing where we stand. Keep up the good work, MOTU.

What can you expect to find within its pages? The meat and potatoes of the plan is an inventory of trail projects, organized by geographic location and/or current construction status:

1. Watershed Park Trails
2. Schuylkill River Trail
3. Delaware River Trail
4. Sidepaths/Roadway Adjacent
5. Miscellaneous
6. Completed or Under Construction

Within this structure, every trail project is numbered. This number is a score based on an extensive list of factors that you can read all about in the plan itself. Why score and rank trail projects? To help ourselves – we’re speaking as “The City”, broadly speaking here – understand how best to support different projects as they progress and seek funding from a variety of sources.

We’re eager for feedback on the plan, which you can leave in the comments section below, hit us up on Facebook or Twitter, or email us at phila2035@phila.gov Happy reading!

Forbes hates comp planning

Some pointed criticism

Do you think they’re right? 

ZBA Marathon

Canal Street project

5 hour hearing this week

Decision yet to be made

BikeShare Bonanza

New York launches soon

Citibank is lead sponsor

Who should sponsor ours?

Note: this picture did not actually happen. Note 2: Jane is the one on the left.

To talk about planning as a simple question of Moses v Jacobs is a dangerous proposition. If an overarching goal of planning is to guide decision-making to produce healthy, accessible, functional, successful cities that serve the needs of their residents, then it’s obvious that neither way of thinking has led to total success. Granted, physical planning is not the sole solution to endemic problems of poverty, crime, segregation, disinvestment, and education, but it is a piece of the puzzle, and thus far, one cannot say that the Moses or Jacobs approach has produced the ideal outcome that we’d like to think we collectively share. One could, of course, debate the relative merits of top down and bottom up for a very long time, but we’re not here to do that.

We’re here to say that you should read this piece from the Place Makers website that brings up an important point so often forgotten: a 180-degree shift in the way we approach an entire field/practice/civic exercise is not the way to go. To say that “experts” got it wrong and they should move aside and let communities manage their own destinies, regardless of what data, knowledge, or powers they may or may not possess is no more likely to build the cities we want than when we entrusted all of the decision-making power to lone individuals or autonomous agencies. What we all need to succeed is something in the middle. In case you don’t have time, here’s the best part:

“Expertise is just a tool to be leveraged… And if your community wants safer streets for walking and cycling, or a new park, or some walkable businesses nearby, or aging-in-place solutions embedded in the neighborhood, it’s equally key to seek out whatever expertise you lack — those skilled in transportation or landscape design, commercial development, neighborhood planning or zoning reform — necessary to empower the effort. Not at the expense of citizens but in partnership with them. Not exclusively top-down or bottom up, but both. Such an approach is not disempowering. It’s liberating, because it allows communities to focus on their own expertise — their wants, needs and concerns — while still leveraging the tools necessary for meaningful implementation. Those who believed that top-down planning would save us were wrong. But doing an about-face exclusively in favor of bottom-up — in effect, another 180-degree course correction — is no better.It’s just deja vu all over again.” 

A screencap of us playing around with data: arts organizations, commerce dept grants, and proximity to transit!

Did everyone enjoy Philly Tech Week? Are you impressed with Philadelphia’s leadership in open data? If so, then you’ll love Cultureblocks!

This had not been on our radar screen until recently. Essentially, Cultureblocks maps our creative economy: arts organizations, grant recipients, etc. What makes it even more interesting to us planners is that it also allows you to overlay that arts information with other indicators, like demographics, or even zoning! This free tool has the potential to help all different types of organizations understand opportunities for investment and to start to understand trends in terms of where the creative economy is and where it’s going.

Check it out, and tell us what you think!

The answer is…well, I don’t want to spoil the fun of reading our powerpoint, but I think one truthful if inadequate answer is that, frankly, it’s a little hard to tell. Information from folks who signed up for PHL2035: The Game reveal that of those that went ahead and played, 133 of them were new to any kind of planning involvement. 75 of the players went so far as to say that this was their first time involving themselves in government activities of any kind. So…there’s that. Not a huge number, but a very real quantity of people who got their introduction to planning through that activity.

Looking at our other media, a major challenge is that we don’t always have the background information necessary to determine if the people we’re reaching are long-time participants, one-time opinion-givers, newbies, or some combination thereof. The good news is that we had a fantastic discussion with a packed house of folks last night at the Corzo Center for the Creative Economy at the University of the Arts. People are encouraged at our efforts to reach more audiences, eager to suggest ways to improve and expand that reach, and realistic about the challenges inherent in engaging an entire city’s population in a process that can seem long-term, abstract, and difficult to grasp.

Please read the powerpoint (attached as a pdf above), explore the data visualization (also linked above) and share any comments and ideas you have with us.

1) April 24th, 6pm, @ UArts: Digital Civic Engagement Tools: Are Planning Officials Talking to Anyone New? It’s kind of meta for us to advertise this on one of our digital civic engagement tools, especially since we’re wondering, out-loud, in a structured, conversational way next week, whether or not we’re reaching new audiences, asking the right questions, and building new constituencies of people that want to see transparent planning happen. If you’re curious to hear our take on the new technologies we’ve used to engage the public, and/or if you have thoughts on how we’re doing, who we’re reaching, etc, then please come join us for this casual discussion/presentation. Registration in the link above. This event is part of Philly Tech Week. 

2) April 30th, 6pm (doors) 6:30 (event): The Philly Bike-Share Forum. Come hear from the people making bike-share work in Boston, Denver, and DC, as well as our own Mayor’s Office of Transportation and Utilities folks discuss Philadelphia’s future system. This is a great opportunity to learn about the similarities and differences of bike share programs that are already up and running, but also to hear the most up-to-date details on our system. We’re very excited about this new component of the city’s multi-modal infrastructure, and if you are too, this event is for you!

http://phillymotu.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/the-philly-bike-share-forum-2/

Attendees check out boards spread around the Quorum conference room while staff wait to discuss questions and concerns.

100 residents and other stakeholders spent their Monday evening with us at Quorum, an impressive meeting space inside the University City Science Center building at 3711 Market Street to discuss the University Southwest District Plan’s priority recommendations and Focus Areas.

Priority recommendations are selected by the planning team staff based on what we’ve heard from the community and what we understand to be the most pressing and/or implementable (hopefully both, but not always) of the plan’s 40ish recommendations. As our more devout followers likely know, recommendations take on many forms. All are “assigned” to an implementing entity, be it a city agency, community group, or other organization. Some recommendations are ones that we work on directly, such as zoning re-mapping bills. Others are more or less out of our hands, and it’s up to us to continue to advocate for their completion by helping other agencies find the capacity to get them done (whether that’s staff, money, consulting services, etc).

For USW, we settled on 10 priority recommendations that we discussed in details with meeting attendees this week (note, the numbering below is based on the numbering from the entire plan, so USW21 is the 21st recommendation in the University Southwest Plan…complicated, we know, but there’s going to be about 1,000 recommendations by the time we finish the 18 District Plans, and we need to keep them straight). The draft plan will be available in full next week, but in the meantime, here are the first 5 priority recommendations for your consideration: 

USW 8: Create transit-oriented development overlays along Market Street and in vicinity of stations at 30th, 40th, and 46th Street stations to enable higher density, mixed-use development.

This one is a zoning recommendation, so that falls to us and City Council. Specifically, we’re talking about an overlay on top of the base zoning in a large area all along the Market Street spine. The reason a TOD Overlay was written into the new code was to provide additional incentives for density, pedestrian-friendly design, and mixed-income housing at transit nodes. We see this as an important overlay for encouraging development in places where the market hasn’t taken off (46th) and encouraging an appropriate scale and mix of uses in busy pedestrian areas (40th and 30th).

USW 11: Preserve single-family building stock in portions of West Powelton, Saunders Park, Powelton Village, Walnut Hill, Garden Court, Cedar Park, Spruce Hill, and Kingsessing by rezoning these areas to single- or two-family zoning classifications.

Again, a zoning recommendation, and you’ll need to consult the draft plan to see the specifics, but the intent is spelled out right there in the rec itself. This also relates to the previous recommendation: changing zoning near transit stations and along corridors can act as a sort of offset to this recommendation. Taken together, these two actions encourage the most density and activity in the places that can handle it best, while discouraging conversions and overcrowding in stable single-family areas.

The zoning station was a popular stop during our open house meeting this past Monday.

USW 13: Create a Request For Proposals and subsidize the development of scattered site affordable housing in a section of Kingsessing bounded by Chester Avenue, Woodland Avenue, 58th Street, and 57th Street. 

The idea here is to build off recent public investments like the 58th street greenway (opening in June!) and improvements to Myers Recreation Center. Unlike some other areas of the city where there is a glaringly large vacant lot that changes the feel of an entire neighborhood, Kingsessing suffers from “missing teeth.” Filling in these gaps serves to stabilize and beautify existing residential blocks, and places affordable housing directly into a functioning neighborhood, rather than segregating it elsewhere as was common practice in the mid 20th century. With investments planned for the Lower Schuylkill and Bartram’s Mile, 58th Street is a highly desirable corridor to live on or near from a transportation and job access standpoint.

USW 15: Re-certify for blighted conditions and update the Redevelopment Area PLans for the following redevelopment areas: South 51st Street and Baltimore Avenue; 4800 Block of Woodland Avenue

Blight certification is another tool that planners have (other than zoning, that is), to influence land use. These locations are along important mixed-use corridors and incredibly well-served by multiple transit lines. They’re also in areas where the built fabric begins to deteriorate. Reclaiming parcels here for housing, commercial, or other uses would serve to make these transit transfer points feel more like destinations and extend the continuity of Baltimore and Woodland avenues, both of which have welcomed new businesses in recent years.

USW 17: Rezone the Lower Schuylkill Industrial properties to better attract research and development, advanced and artisanal manufacturing, and institutional uses as put forth in the Lower Schuylkill Master Plan.

Another zoning recommendation, this one supports the Master Plan nearing completion for one of our largest industrial legacy areas, the Lower Schuylkill. New zoning classifications can lower costs and headaches for new development and set the tone for the types of industries and businesses we wish to attract south of Grays Ferry.

So there you have the 5 “Thrive” chapter recommendations, and as you can see, they’re all very public-sector driven. In fact, all of them involve leg work for our office or our partners, and not the kind that costs millions of dollars, either! Pretty realistic! Pretty doable! Yes.

iPads were available to show people visualizations of the game data.

But that’s not all we covered at the meeting. We also had folks on hand from Engagement Game Lab. Yes, the very folks who brought us PHL2035: The Game! They came to town to help us break down the results for people, which were impressive: nearly 5,000 comments generated over three weeks of play.

We also had an opportunity to award the prizes for the most popular local causes, as voted on during the game by all of you who signed up to play. The Top 3 winners – the West Philadelphia Coalition for Neighborhood Schools, Neighborhood Bike Works, and the Woodlands Cemetery – each received $500 donations. As a surprise, a 4th cause was voted on during our open house meeting, and they – the West Phila Fresh Food Hub – received a $250 check.

All in all, a great meeting. With adoption of the USW Plan scheduled for June, there’ll be ample time for additional public input on the full draft, which we will share with you here once it’s available.

Staff from the Woodlands Trust for Historic Preservation pose with their Publishers Clearing House -style check.

Orange buildings indicate possible development sites. Lighter and dashed orange represent existing proposals, with dashed buildings already under construction.

Let’s start with 40th Street. This Focus Area has two significant growth opportunities:

1) The large parcels near 38th and Lancaster, including the University City HS campus

2) The MFL Station area itself

In both cases, we have parcels of significant size and zoning that would permit a wide variety of potential build-outs. Our plan does not intend to overly prescribe; rather, we present a vision of how new development can strengthen the surrounding areas.

With the 38th and Lancaster area, a big idea is the re-introduction of a north-south street through the superblock created by the school campus. Cutting this superblock into smaller chunks can not only make it more marketable, but it brings down the scale of development to something more familiarly Philadelphian.

The schematic above shows buildings “behaving” well, in that they hold the street wall and come right up to corners. These are subtle points that people don’t think about all the time, but the presence of a building on a corner (or lack thereof) and the degree to which it aligns with the street wall of adjacent structures overwhelmingly dictates the feel of a block. What about uses? Proposed zoning would encourage mixed-use commercial and residential. There’s certainly room for different residential options, from additional student housing to decrease pressure on neighborhood  housing stock, to mixed-income housing to appeal to the area’s workforces.

Mixed-income housing also comes into play at the 40th and Market corner. Here we have a subsidized housing complex on the southeast corner. Without digging too much into tax credits for low-income housing and how they work, we can say that most projects funded with Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) sign a 15-year period of compliance. When that period expires, there is no obligation (or incentive, necessarily) to continue to offer the units at below market rate. What our plan calls for is to make sure that any redevelopment that happens on this site will retain the number of affordable rate units that it has today. One way to make this feasible even without the tax credits that cover the difference is to redevelop the property with a more intensive mix of uses, so that revenue from market rate units and commercial tenants can support the low-income units. In other words, a denser project would emerge, with more residents and probably additional uses, but we’d still be able to offer below-market rate units in this optimally transit- and job-accessible location.

With the tricks and lies out of the way, and warm weather seemingly nowhere in sight, we thought it would be good to remind you that this coming Monday, April 8th, you should head to Quorum, a totally rad event space at the Science Center (3711 Market Street), to attend our final public meeting for the University Southwest District Plan. You may remember the Science Center from such films as yesterday’s Civic Design Review meeting wherein a residential tower was proposed and reviewed for 3601 Market Street.

Large projects lining up for review and implementation in University City are welcome reminders of why it’s good – nay, necessary! – to plan. The folks behind 3601 Market, for example, propose a project that exceeds the Floor Area Ratio allowed in the current zoning. This should rightfully raise a flag in the sense that you would want to understand why they can’t conform to the zoning and why we do or don’t think they should. In this case, our forthcoming plan, which PlanPhilly profiled ever so nicely this week, actually calls for “up-zoning” on this parcel and others nearby, so lo and behold, the proposal for 3601 Market – at least from an FAR standpoint – is in line with what we hope will be the adopted plan for that area come summer. So there you have it: a real life example of how a plan informs discussion around project review.

But we’ve been sidetracked. What we want to introduce for you today are separate posts digging into the Focus Areas of the University Southwest District Plan. We’ve got renderings and pictures to share, so stay tuned as we roll those out in advance of Monday’s meeting!