#theatlanticcities

[leonardchien]

Reading: This Addictive New Game Lets You Build Your Own Subway System

Players can build their own subway system in the new game Mini Metro.

The developer promises to deliver the full version in Q2.

I want this.

[josephkopser]

Democratization of Transportation Continued: Senate Transportation Bill Stalls Public Transit Riders

Let’s begin today by remembering a period of time in America’s history: the years between 1936 and 1950.  

If you’re a transportation or urban planning enthusiast, you may recall that those were the years General Motors monopolized the transportation industry and turned the United States into the car capital it is today. It’s not the prettiest picture in America’s history book.

The General Motors streetcar conspiracy refers to the allegations and later convictions of a program led by GM and partnered companies to dismantle streetcar and electric train systems in the United States. An automobile company was responsible for dismantling America’s urban train system, leaving us to choose between taking the bus (which were fume heavy at the time) or buying a car.

Whether we realized it or not, the American car manufacturers changed our country--- for better and for worse. The 2014 Senate Transportation Bill makes this point all the more obvious.  

The Bill increased the federal commuter tax benefit for those that drive to work, but decreased the benefit for mass transit riders.  Really?  Has everyone thought this through yet?   Are we incentivizing our society to get out on the road by themselves rather than find more efficient options?

Emily Badger  from The Atlantic Cities reports as much: “The benefit allows employees to devote a pre-tax chunk of their income to commuting costs, like parking garage fees or mass transit passes. Traditionally, though, the benefit has been nearly twice as generous for drivers as transit riders.” For example she wrote, “[In 2008] transit riders were allowed to set aside $115 a month; car drivers (and their employers) could forgo paying taxes on up to $220 in income each month.”

The inequalities were fixed with the stimulus package in 2009, but must be extended by Congress on the first of each year. With the disfunction of the government shutdown in late 2013, this issue was neglected.

Local agencies such as WMATA suggest mass ridership drops when these subsidies expire. “There's a valid argument to be made that the government – and taxpayers at large – shouldn't subsidize any commutes” Emily writes”, whether people get to work by car, by bus, by train, or by boat. But while the government continues to specifically subsidize parking (even as it battles traffic congestion on other fronts), it's illogical not to offer an equal benefit to commuters who take cars off the road. If anything, we should be talking about how to bring bike commuters into this equation, not how to keep mass transit riders there.”

I don’t personally advocate for big or small government; I advocate for smart government.

While I did shine a light on some shady 20th century automotive history, I’m not arguing against driving a car. I would like to see us rewrite our history, however, by focusing on transportation efficiency. Mass transit, biking, and carpooling fit squarely in that request.

Society must take the “fully burdened cost of traffic” into the equation when planning transportation subsidies. Every dollar spent to subsidize cars (especially single occupancy vehicles), has a 2nd or 3rd order effect on the community that is more costly than transit or biking.

There’s no easy answer here. Transportation inefficiency is a difficult problem to solve because it’s habitual.  We are on the move everyday and we need to be smarter about it.

I argue, however, that alternative modes of transportation much be encouraged by the government and society. It all circles back to the democratization of transportation: we need to give a fighting chance for other forms of transit, and transit that is available to everyone. Safe, legal and reliable needs to be our standard.  From there, we simply need to show everyone all their options and let them understand the fully burdened costs of transportation--- in terms of both time and money.

[policymatters12-blog]

The Senate's 'Elitist, White-Boy' Plan to Fight Gangs Isn't Right, But It's A Start

A proposal by Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk for combating Chicago's violence epidemic has, for the first time in a long time, brought national attention to inner-city violence. Unsurprisingly, the proposal has also provoked intense debate and controversy. 

This week, "The Senate's 'Elitist, White Boy' Plan to Fight Gangs is Right" by David Masciotra was published on The Atlantic Cities. Masciotra criticizes recent comments by Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush and Rev. Michael Pfleger pertaining to the Senate proposal. The plan calls for the mass incarceration of members of Chicago gangs, specifically the Gangster Disciples, a tactic that Rush and Pfleger have denounced as elitist and out-of-touch. I applaud Masciotra for his concern for and genuine desire to combat the violence plaguing Chicago - the first step to combating this violence is shining a light on it and his passion has helped do so. However, his critique of Rush and Pfleger and analysis of the issue leaves much to be desired. 

Masciotra condemns Rush and Pfleger for not realizing the importance of safety in turning a community around and implying that gang members should receive the same services and rights as the citizens such members have terrorized over recent years.

Masciotra's first criticism seems misplaced. Rush and Pfleger did not state that safety is unimportant - in fact, they likely completely agree that safety is vital to community revitalization - rather, they view the Senate's plan as short-sighted because it only focuses on locking gang members up. Inherent in Rush and Pfleger's statements is the same belief in the importance of safety, but a more nuanced perspective on the issue than Masciotra demonstrates.

Rush and Pfleger have experienced years of the War on Drugs in their communities and, thus, have first-hand knowledge of the effect on safety that a "lock 'em up" strategy can have. When criminals are simply locked up with no additional strategies for a neighborhood, power vacuums are created and children are left without parents, thereby perpetuating a cycle of violence and poverty. When powerful gangs' members are thrown in prison, other gangs (recently formed or already existing) will compete for the newly available "turf," setting off more deadly violence (for evidence of the effect of power vacuums, see the drug war in Latin America). Why? Most of the young people of Chicago have few other rational options given the poor education they've received and poverty that has plagued their youth. Turning down the opportunity to grab a slice of the large pie left behind by the Gangster Disciples or another gang is very difficult for someone that has never tasted something sweet. 

Masciotra references federal efforts to lock up organized crime leaders, such as Al Capone and John Gotti, as demonstrating the success of "lock 'em" up strategies. This analogy is completely unconvincing as it involves individuals from different community contexts and very unique situations. Capone's arrest did not lead to a bloody struggle for his "turf" because prohibition took the profits out of his empire. With Gotti's arrest, we do not know whether organized crime was impacted at all. Furthermore, neither Gotti nor Capone lived in high-poverty areas with the characteristics of the Southside of Chicago. 

In addition to setting off a power struggle, the lock 'em up strategy leaves more children without parents or providers, reinforcing their dire situations and enhancing their own chances of breaking the law. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 70% of children with incarcerated parents end up incarcerated at some point themselves. Thus, by calling for more holistic efforts rather than simply throwing gang members in jail, Rush and Pfleger are demonstrating a commitment to safety, not a disregard for its importance.

Masciotra's second critique is driven home with the statement: "When Rush fails to differentiate between what society owes to gang members and what it owes to his law-abiding constituents he makes . . . crucial errors that disrespect, undermine, and insult the very people he is claiming to defend." Here, Masciotra misses a complexity that must be taken into account when attempting to address gang violence: gang members and law-abiding citizens are deeply interconnected. Providing substantial services and assistance to those involved in gangs is just as important as doing so with law-abiding citizens. It is not a question of what society owes gang members, it is about what type of treatment they should receive in order to make society safer and neighborhoods more successful - at least this is the question Masciotra should ask if he is truly concerned with safety.  

In this respect, we should seek to provide gang members with services that are similar to those that law-abiding citizens receive. Gangs include young teens that have yet to commit violent acts and others capable of reform. By providing services to these individuals that give them an opportunity to become successful in the legitimate economy, we can prevent them from being menaces to our neighborhoods. Given these individuals are also family members, friends, and partners of law-abiding citizens, providing them services and opportunities also betters the lives of those citizens Masciotra is most concerned about. 

Gang violence is not only an extremely important issue, but it is a complex one. No single strategy can effectively address it. Masciotra, Rush, and Pfleger each make valid points that should be taken into account if we are to achieve the nuanced policy needed to combat gang violence. For example, a "lock 'em" up strategy is likely needed for the most violent members of street gangs but such a strategy should be accompanied by intense services and real opportunities for the rest of the community as well as remaining gang members.  

Whatever the result that Rush, Pflegler, and Mastriota's debate has, I am excited that the debate is happening. It's about damn time. 

[thiscitylife]

Citymaker: Emily Badger

Citymakers is a series featuring people who do great things for cities - whether it is through their love of art, music, photography, public space, nature or any form of creative expression or city issue. They don’t get  a lot of recognition for what they do. And, they often do it in their spare time, for free or little money, off the side of their desk, mostly while working full-time, 9-5 jobs. But, that is not an issue to them. They pursue their art or passion because they love and care about what they are doing.

I've been reading the Atlantic Cities since it launched a few years ago and I was always interested in the stories of one particular writer, Emily Badger. Emily is a writer in the Washington, D.C., area, where she covers urban planning and affairs for The Atlantic Cities. She has written a number of articles on the impact of gentrification, segregation and nature in cities (all topics that I love to cover on This City Life). 

Emily grew up in and loves Chicago. She has also lived for various stretches in Portland, Cleveland, Orlando, Tallahassee, Paris, Norfolk and Atlanta. So far, she has been sitting still in the D.C. area for three full years – "a personal adult record" – while working on a Master's degree. 

I wanted to feature her in my Citymakers series because she is a great writer on topics that will have a significant impact on the future of cities.

Who are you ?

I'm a staff writer for The Atlantic Cities, where I write about a lot of wide-ranging topics that each touch in some way on cities and urban life. Some days I write about affordable housing and racial segregation. Other days I write about how climate change could impact cities, or how open data is changing the relationship between residents and City Hall. I also love to write about maps, parking, and people (like myself) who rent their homes instead of owning them. It's a pretty great job.

What motivates you to get involved in city life?

I grew up in Chicago (always telling people, "yes, the actual city, not the suburbs"). And I think that's a great place to learn to love cities. Chicago has amazing architecture, and really interesting urban history (both good chapters and bad) and some wildly different and fascinating neighborhoods. When I was a kid, my mother also worked for the city as the parking commissioner. As a result, we somehow had a parking meter in our apartment.

Why Washington, DC?

In a word: jobs. My husband is a defense contractor, and when we moved to town I was primarily writing about public policy. Washington is pretty much the best and only place to do either of these things. But we also love that the city is so close to an amazing national park, Shenandoah. It's often hard to find a major city so close to such beautiful nature.

Washington would be better if____(fill in the blanks)  

Washington would be better if it were more affordable. Housing costs here are pretty ridiculous, and I often wonder how all of these summer interns and non-profit employees get by paying $1,500 a month to sleep in someone's basement.

Favourite public space?

The courtyard inside the National Portrait Gallery is great, as are the gardens outside the U.S. Botanic Gardens off the Mall.

Must have city souvenir?

Edible souvenirs are my favorite. So I go for deep-dish pizza in Chicago, maybe a half-smoke in Washington.

Favourite local hangout?

The Mount Vernon Trail bike path along the Potomac. That may not quite be a "hangout," but I spend a lot of time there, and it's a great place to experience a sense of Washington with the monuments across the river, the rowers on the Potomac, and airplanes landing right overhead at DCA.

Local inspiration (person, place or thing)?

The Saturday morning farmer's market in Old Town, Alexandria. 

Worst thing about your city?

The summer heat. It's awful. And so humid. And lasts forever.

Favourite city memory?

I have a lot of great memories of going to White Sox games as a kid in Chicago with my family. When I was young, I could not imagine how anyone could live in a city without a baseball team (let alone two of them to pick from).

Citymakers is a column to profile people who positively contribute to the city (socially, artistically, environmentally, etc.). Who else should be profiled here?

Jennifer Pahlka

Cameron Booth

Candy Chang

Harriet Tregoning

Norman Garrick

Ben Miller

John King