#10 The Gas Buyers’ Club

In the 1970s and 1980s, deregulation of industries was happening left and right. Most of the early momentum was around transportation (except airlines, initially) and energy, two topics of interest for CNT.

President Reagan also campaigned on reducing environmental regulations, but that’s another story.

In the energy sector, Americans had been buying electricity and natural gas from monopolies—companies that bought wholesale but considerably marked up prices to consumers. The lack of market competition left no choice but to pay high prices.

Following OPEC price hikes and domestic price controls (and the 1973 oil crisis), various forms of deregulation began to impact the natural gas market. States passed legislation to increase consumer choice, and in some cases allowed non-utilities to purchase gas in bulk for resale to consumers.

CNT decided to enter this market. We took delivery of gas and delivered it to customers who joined our Gas Buyers’ Club, with whom we split the savings.

These customers were fellow nonprofits and other “little guy” organizations that lacked the power to take advantage of such opportunity. We paid six community groups to read meters and monitor use of and satisfaction with the program. It worked well. Until the rules changed again, allowing utilities to be their own brokers, thus ending the Gas Buyers’ Club.

But that’s not the end of our story.

During the winter of 2000, natural gas prices caught many Chicago residents by surprise. Some 90 percent of Chicago households used natural gas for heating, and most won’t forget how gas prices escalated month-by-month during that heating season. Between April 2000 and January 2001, prices rose from $0.32/therm to $0.98/therm—a 200-percent increase. This price shock strained all but the most ample household heating budgets.

The volatility of the natural gas market in 2000 and 2001 left many wondering when the next spike would hit. Homeowners, condo associations, landlords and renters felt powerless in the face of new forces controlling the energy markets. Industry advocates and policy makers debated long-term solutions while gas suppliers promoted annualized payment plans. Neither could provide adequate protection against fluctuating prices, so CNT and the Community Energy Cooperative devised a different plan, which was rooted in the success of the Gas Buyers’ Club.

The Community Energy Cooperative, in cooperation with the City of Chicago, introduced the Natural Gas Price Protection Plan. This pilot program provided relief from the anxiety of skyrocketing gas prices.

Here’s how it worked:

1. The Cooperative bought natural gas options for the months of December 2001 and January and February 2002. These options allowed the purchase of gas at a specific price, called the target price. The Cooperative financed this purchase with funds from the City of Chicago.
2. To be part of the program, Cooperative members were required to attend workshops to learn about energy efficiency and conservation. This entitled them to share in the “insurance” the option purchase provided.
3. If the wholesale price of natural gas rose above this target price, the Cooperative would sell the natural gas options to suppliers. The Cooperative would then use the proceeds from the sale of the options to give rebates to program participants. These rebates would help offset the increases that would show up on household natural gas bills.

How did this foray into high finance turn out? World events intruded, in a way no one could have anticipated. The Cooperative’s planned purchase of the gas futures had to be postponed when the stock markets closed on September 11, 2001. Despite the uncertainty in the weeks and months that followed, gas prices never hit the highs seen the previous winter, and the Natural Gas Price Protection Plan was discontinued.

But, again, that’s not the end of our story.

The motivations behind and lessons learned from the Gas Buyers’ Club and the Natural Gas Price Protection Plan informed later CNT work in the energy sector; notably, the dynamic pricing initiatives like the Residential Real-Time Pricing program currently managed by CNT Energy. Collectively, we remain committed to developing and advancing solutions that empower all people to make smart economic and environmental decisions.

But that’s still not the end of our story…

We’re celebrating CNT’s 35 years of impact on sustainable urban development through 35 weeks of posts like this one. If you have a story or picture from our past, please share it with Anjuli@cnt.org. Thanks!

CNT’s work is made possible, in part, through generous support from individual donors. Please click here to make a gift in honor of our 35th anniversary.

Next week: #11 Saving the Green Line

CHICAGO (May 14, 2013)—When it comes to flooding in cities, it makes little difference whether a property is located within a floodplain or not—damage happens, happens often, and can inflict significant costs. This stark lack of correlation between property damage claims and recognized floodplains is among the key findings of The Prevalence and Cost of Urban Flooding, a report released today by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT).

The report, the first of its kind to collectively analyze flood damage claims and sewer- and drain-backup claims data from multiple providers of insurance and other financial assistance, is part of a first phase of research at CNT on the prevalence and cost of flooding to property owners—such as homes and businesses—in urban and suburban areas. Urban flooding is caused by too much rain overwhelming drainage systems and waterways, and making its way into basements, backyards, and streets.

CNT researchers took the unprecedented step of combining insurance claims payout data for property damage in Cook County, IL (between 2007–2011, aggregated by ZIP code), with analysis of 115 responses to an online survey of property owners in Cook County that experienced property flooding in the last five years.

Key points emerging from the report:

• Urban flooding in Cook County is chronic and systemic, resulting in damage that is widespread, repetitive and costly. Our analysis identified 177,000 claims made across 96 percent of Cook County ZIP codes, and in each of the five years. This is the equivalent of one in six properties in the County making a claim. Average payouts per claim were $3,733 across all types of claims, with total claims amounting to $660 million over the five years examined. Seventy percent of the online survey respondents estimate that they had flooded three or more times in the last five years, 20 percent have flooded 10 or more times.
• There are multiple social and economic impacts on property owners. Our online survey found that 84 percent suffered stress and 13 percent ill health. Forty-one percent lost the use of part of their property, 63 percent lost valuables and 74 percent lost hours of work to clean up.
• There is no correlation between damage payouts and the floodplains. When all types of claims are aggregated, some of the Cook County ZIP codes with the highest concentration of payouts (number and value) have no land area located within federally designated floodplains.

• Claims were made across income groups, however 67 percent of the 27 ZIP codes with the highest concentrations of damage earn below the average median household income for Cook County.
• Flood insurance is not carrying the burden of damage payouts. Claims via the National Flood Insurance Program—the only formal ‘flood’ insurance program—represent just 10 percent of total payouts.

• No clear solutions for property owners. The vast majority—76 percent of online survey respondents—had invested in measures to prevent future flooding, such as downspout disconnection and pumps, but only six percent believed that the investment had solved their flooding problem.

“In looking at the data we have, which is unique, we saw a somewhat shocking picture of the cost and frequency of urban flood damage,” said Harriet Festing, Water Program Director at CNT. “More shocking is that we know it represents a significant understatement of actual flood damage. There’s more data out there from insurers and property owners that will tell an even more disheartening story.”

Research conducted by CNT in 2012 indicates that communities across the Great Lakes region are suffering from the impacts of urban flooding caused by moderate and heavy rain running off roofs, roads, and parking lots. The economic and social consequences can be considerable: experts estimate that wet basements decrease property values by 10-25 percent, and that almost 40 percent of small businesses never reopen their doors following a flooding disaster.

“This report is further evidence of an increasingly persistent and prevalent problem, and one that cannot and should not be left to property owners to solve on their own,” said Kathryn Tholin, CEO of CNT. “There are steps that cities and counties can take now to protect properties and encourage smarter stormwater management.”

The Prevalence and Cost of Urban Flooding also finds that communities affected by urban flooding are not benefiting from state and federal programs and incentives designed to support them. For example, CNT research shows that only 19 of the 133 communities in Cook County are participating in FEMA’s Community Rating System, and that Cook County does not have a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. This means that the majority of property owners in ZIP codes with high urban flood damage payouts are unable to benefit from reduced flood insurance rates and other protective measures that form part of the programs.

CNT is engaging a broad set of stakeholders in an expansion of this research, and is designing innovative and cost-effective solutions to protect homes and businesses in the future. This work includes the development and promotion of state legislation—the provisionally dubbed ‘Dry Basements Act’— and the nation’s first wet weather Wetrofit® service.

On June 13, 2013, CNT will convene Cook County property owners, contractors, elected officials and others at The Gross Gathering, an event intended to document urban flooding stories, and work with property owners to develop swift, affordable, neighborhood solutions.

This research is part of CNT’s Smart Water for Smart Regions initiative dedicated to inventive solutions and advocacy focused on water supply and stormwater in the Great Lakes states.

Visit www.cnt.org/water for more information.

CONTACT
Ryan Kilpatrick, 773.269.4041; Harriet Festing, 773.269.4042

###

Founded in 1978, CNT is a Chicago-based think-and-do tank that works nationally to advance urban sustainability by researching, inventing and testing strategies that use resources more efficiently and equitably. Its programs focus on transportation, energy, water, community development, and climate. Visit www.cnt.org for more information.

#9 Community Energy Cooperative

Last week’s post about energy efficiency in Pilsen offered just a glimpse into CNT’s growing focus on energy at the turn of the 21st Century. The Pilsen project was part of a larger and unprecedented initiative to reduce energy demand in targeted communities around Illinois.

In the year 2000, CNT announced the establishment of the Community Energy Cooperative, a partnership with Commonwealth Edison, which focused on communities where growing electric demand was pushing local capacity near the breaking point. The Cooperative helped residents and businesses reduce the amount of electricity they used through strategies like energy-efficiency,  generating power locally, and “demand response.”

Demand response refers to strategies designed to help utilities manage electricity supply so there’s enough to go around, especially in times of peak demand—like those hot summer days when everyone is running their air conditioners. When it looks like customer demand is going to outpace available supply, utilities can either generate more supply, or have some of their users curtail their electricity use in a “demand response.” Generating more supply is costly, and the methods used to generate that energy can be disproportionately polluting. This makes demand response a viable option.

In the demand response deal, ComEd paid the Cooperative when its members reduced their energy use as power was needed elsewhere in the system. The Cooperative enrolled mid-size commercial and industrial businesses in load-management programs, where they installed energy-efficient equipment, curtailed their electricity use, or used on-site generators (a Cooperative-subsidized purchase) instead of electricity from the grid. Demand response was valuable; members could earn $12,000 – $20,000 over the course of one summer. A portion of all energy reduction revenues were paid into a fund set up by the Cooperative to support community development, and a small portion supported the Cooperative’s operational expenses.

One of the first businesses to participate in the Cooperative was Victor Envelope Company in suburban Bensenville. Ken Seroka was General Manager of Victor Envelope at the time. He thought saving money, conserving energy and helping the community all made good business sense.

“I grew up here, and I have to tell you, I’ve never seen anything like this Community Energy Cooperative,” Seroka said in a 2000 interview. “We’ve had problems in the past with power outages. The Cooperative offers more than just energy-reduction tips for our businesses such as reducing our power usage at peak times. They give you a wide array of suggestions for more efficient use of energy on a daily basis. And for every dollar earned from demand reduction, the Cooperative donates 30 cents to our community fund. Based on the energy curtailment test this summer, that could mean a new swimming program for neighborhood kids.”

The curtailment test was part of a Cooperative strategy to show that businesses could manage day-to-day operations without interruption even during peak times, such as the hottest days of summer. In the past, businesses like Victor Envelope depended on their utilities to provide reliable service even during peak demand periods. By joining the Cooperative, businesses learned how to manage their own energy usage and prevent outages.

“The Cooperative asked us on August 29 to curtail power as a test run,” Seroka explained in 2000. “For this Power Down event, we shut down our factory air conditioning for a four-hour period. That equates to roughly 200 tons of air conditioning, or 20 percent of our demand for that period. Our building is well insulated, so the Power Down did not burden our employees, machinery or work production in the factory area. We also cut the overhead factory lighting leaving only the drop lighting in place.”

“In all, we realized a reduction of around 300 kWh, which is fairly significant. The test demonstrated that we could operate normally during a Power Down. And the financial reward was very substantial. The Cooperative has changed the way we think about energy and how we use it.”

Victor Envelope was just one example of the Cooperative’s success. In total, the Cooperative demonstrated the capacity to reduce electric demand by a staggering 8.7 megawatts on 30 minutes’ notice.

In 2007, Illinois moved to a restructured electricity market, and the Cooperative and CNT moved in a new direction to take advantage of the emerging opportunities. The result: CNT Energy, which now focuses on localized programs and research in the areas of dynamic electricity pricing, building performance, and regional energy planning. It’s an exciting new chapter to CNT’s energy story.

We’re celebrating CNT’s 35 years of impact on sustainable urban development through 35 weeks of posts like this one. If you have a story or picture from our past, please share it with Anjuli@cnt.org. Thanks!

CNT’s work is made possible, in part, through generous support from individual donors. Please click here to make a gift in honor of our 35th anniversary.

Next week: #10 Gas Buyers’ Club

CHICAGO (May 7, 2013)—While Chicago has made significant investments in transit-oriented development (TOD) over the past decade, the region has not seen the same levels of success as other major US metropolitan areas in the successful development of transit zones—the land areas within one half-mile of passenger rail stations. Whereas peer cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco saw positive growth between 2000 and 2010, Chicago actually saw a decline in development. A report released by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) recommends a series of policy actions Chicago leaders can take to get transit-oriented development on track, and to improve the region’s economic, environmental, and social sustainability.

In the report, Transit-Oriented Development in the Chicago Region: Efficient and Resilient Communities for the 21^st Century, CNT researchers evaluated the dynamics of the Chicago Region’s 367 fixed Metra and CTA rail stations and station areas between 2000 and 2010.[1] Using the National TOD Database, a first-of-its-kind web tool developed by CNT that provides access to comprehensive information about more than 4,000 transit zones across the United States, researchers identified the transit zones that performed well: those that anchored vital, walkable communities that possess an affordable, high quality of life with minimal impact on the environment.

“Understanding how transit zones perform, especially those that have performed well, helps chart a smart course for future investment and development,” said CNT President Scott Bernstein. “Local leaders can use this information to make data-driven policy and investment decisions, to make choices that prioritize connecting people to jobs and strengthening communities through more efficient use of land and resources.”

To maximize the return on public investment in transit and create a ripple of benefits for the communities that it serves, the report recommends Chicago-area leaders make five fundamental commitments to transit and transit-oriented development (TOD):

1. Create TOD zones. Many of the barriers to TOD are embedded in the land use policies of local governments, and are further complicated by regional, state, and federal policies. Creating TOD zones helps eliminate barriers to development.
2. Preserve affordable housing. To realize the full regional benefits of quality transit and TOD, mixed-income housing must be preserved and expanded in TOD zones. This may be accomplished through a combination of policies that prioritize housing assistance to TOD communities and enforce existing state requirements for affordable housing in all communities.
3. Match jobs and transit. Many limitations of metropolitan Chicago’s transit system—as well as high transportation costs, traffic congestion, and air pollution—stem from job centers moving away from mixed-income neighborhoods. A more efficient and healthier pattern may be established through systematic efforts to expand transit services to job centers, site new employers in existing transit-served communities, and promote incentives to commute through transit, biking, or walking.
4. Provide alternatives to car ownership. Even dedicated transit users often are forced to buy cars to meet transportation needs that transit cannot efficiently fill. To provide alternatives to car ownership, the Region should support the growth of car-sharing services, build more extensive bicycle infrastructure, and establish more pedestrian-friendly streetscapes.
5. Prioritize TOD across agencies. While public agencies can set favorable conditions for TOD, public investments of more than $1 billion are needed through 2040 to remove impediments to redevelopment and attract the much larger private investments that will build the mixed-income housing, mixed-use buildings, and functioning businesses that constitute TODs. Coordinated priorities and investments among a range of public agencies are needed to generate these effective public investments.

Joe Costello, Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) Executive Director, said in response to the report’s release, “The RTA has been an active supporter of transit-oriented development over the past decade, providing funding and technical assistance support to local communities throughout our service area. We will continue to support all strategies to maximize ridership and build our region’s transit infrastructure. That’s why we invest in TOD implementation efforts to further enhance the region and encourage others to do the same.”

The report also found that between 2000 and 2010, household transportation costs in the Chicago Region rose at a faster rate than median household incomes. Chicago-area residents, therefore, paid the price twice: in higher transportation costs, and in lost opportunity for enhanced transit access to jobs and job centers.

“We have some fantastic transit assets in Chicago, we just need to utilize them more wisely and incorporate transit-oriented development principles into our economic development strategy,” said CNT’s CEO, Kathryn Tholin. “This report and its recommendations point us in the right direction, and give us a better chance to enhance quality of life and improve the local economy.”

This new report is a continuation of CNT’s research and recommendations on transit-oriented development, including the 2012 publication Prospering in Place, which honored the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) GO TO 2040 plan for its vision to increase the number of TOD areas of the Region and make them communities of choice—and hence prioritized for public and private resource investment.

DOWNLOAD:

Transit-Oriented Development in the Chicago Region: Efficient and Resilient Communities for the 21^st Century

CONTACT:

Ryan Kilpatrick, Center for Neighborhood Technology, 773-269-4041

###

Founded in 1978, CNT is a Chicago-based think-and-do tank that works nationally to advance urban sustainability by researching, inventing and testing strategies that use resources more efficiently and equitably. Its programs focus on transportation, energy, water, community development, and climate. Visit www.cnt.org for more information.

#8 Energy Efficiency in Pilsen, a Chicago neighborhood

The next few posts in our series celebrating CNT’s 35 years of innovation are about energy. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, energy was the word on everyone’s lips. Enron was being Enron (before it went Enron), and talk of fuel cells was all the rage. CNT was interested in the community-level impacts of energy trends, especially on improving energy efficiency and reliability, but needed a catalyst.

The spark, so to speak, came when a series of electricity blackouts that had been plaguing the neighborhoods finally hit Chicago’s Loop.

In the year 2000, CNT formed a strategic partnership with ComEd, Chicago’s electric utility, called The Neighborhood Project. It was designed to help address the overloads and outages the utility and city were experiencing by targeting investments in energy efficiency and small-scale power production to communities where the local grid was near or at capacity.

The Neighborhood Project offered a unique opportunity for such partnership by helping Chicago’s communities simultaneously build assets, reduce energy use, and allow local residents and businesses to take advantage of the restructuring in the energy markets.

Through a cooperative of commercial, industrial, and residential energy users, The Neighborhood Project developed and implemented “demand reduction” strategies in targeted substations, which translated into more reliable, efficient, and affordable energy.

In effect, this was the beginning of the Community Energy Cooperative (more on that next time), which later became CNT Energy.

Chicago’s Pilsen neighborhood was among the first to see targeted outreach. A primary goal of the program was building residential participation in the Cooperative. All members received an Energy Efficiency Kit provided through a grant from the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA). These kits contained three compact fluorescent bulbs, which were a new and expensive product at the time; water faucet aerators and shower-heads for conserving water use; and an assortment of other energy-efficient products.

One of the biggest sources of electrical demand is air conditioning, and old, inefficient air conditioners use considerably more energy than newer, high-efficiency units. The market didn’t encourage energy efficiency at that time; consumers were likely to purchase the window air conditioner with the lowest sticker price, even though a slightly higher-priced, energy-efficient model will cost less to run over the long term. The Cooperative mounted a two-pronged attack on this problem: They offered new air conditioners, but required the surrender of an old, inefficient air conditioner as part of the deal. Of the total membership of the Cooperative, 200 Pilsen residents were selected, by lottery, to receive one of the new air conditioners. The trade-ins were properly recycled to make sure that harmful chemicals like Freon were disposed of safely.

Once residents installed new, energy-efficient air conditioners, their old units were safely recycled.

The goals of this initial trade-in were to raise awareness of the Cooperative and of energy efficiency strategies, to increase the number of highly energy-efficient air conditioners in the community, and to test the effectiveness of air conditioner trade-in on reducing peak summer energy use. All of the units replaced were tested for energy consumption. Findings demonstrated electricity demand reductions even greater than initially anticipated, and the Cooperative used the results of this initial summer test program to develop a substantially expanded program for the summer of 2001.

The Cooperative also began to offer high-efficiency Maytag Magic Chef refrigerators to Cooperative members at greatly reduced prices. Old units were removed and correctly recycled.

Perhaps all of this is better expressed by Pilsen resident Elacio Rodriguez, who was interviewed in 2000, and began by recalling the problems faced by elders in the community. “They’re on limited funds, so they cut back on air conditioning in the summer and heat in the winter. They are proud and too embarrassed to seek help. The Community Energy Cooperative provides energy efficient air conditioners and educates everyone about using energy efficiently so we can improve the reliability of electricity here and reduce our bills.”

Rodriguez, father of two, learned about the Cooperative at a local festival. A community outreach coordinator explained to him the benefits and distributed boxes containing compact fluorescent light bulbs, window seal and other energy saving items valued at $45. “For a $3 membership fee, they hand you a box of energy saving stuff worth $45,” said Rodriguez. “They also held a drawing, and we actually won a new air conditioner free from the Cooperative. It replaced our old one.”

Like many other new members of the Cooperative, Rodriguez appreciated the savings. “I tried the new compact fluorescent light bulbs we got in our membership kit and decided to use them instead of the standard bulbs in our house. This alone will save our family about $68 per year on electric bills. Our new air conditioner is great, and it will cost us half as much to run as our old one. Next summer, when we replace our second air conditioner, the Cooperative will give us a $100 rebate on the purchase. Joining the Cooperative makes a lot of sense. And it puts us in a good position for the future…”

We’re celebrating CNT’s 35 years of impact on sustainable urban development through 35 weeks of posts like this one. If you have a story or picture from our past, please share it with Anjuli@cnt.org. Thanks!

CNT’s work is made possible, in part, through generous support from individual donors. Please click here to make a gift in honor of our 35th anniversary.

Next week: #9 Community Energy Cooperative

A case in point was illustrated in a presentation given by Dr. Jonas Eliasson of Stockholm’s Royal Institute of Technology at a recent Earth Day event in Chicago. Like most major metropolitan areas, the Swedish capital had long suffered from acute traffic congestion and all of the economic and environmental problems associated with it. Beginning in the early 1990’s, academics and policy experts had discussed the potential solution offered by “congestion pricing,” whereby drivers pay a fee for use of the city’s roads, the level of which depends upon the time of day and the “zone” of the city in which the driver is traveling.

Advocates of the system argued that putting a price on road use would discourage discretionary motorists from driving into the center of the city, leaving the roads less congested at peak times for drivers who had no choice but to drive. Congestion pricing could also encourage people to explore different commuting options like public transit or cycling, as well as provide a potential revenue stream to pay for road maintenance and investment in transit services.

Supporters of congestion pricing soon learned that developing effective solutions is not enough. Transforming ideas into actual implemented policies required a concerted effort to educate the voting public. As Dr. Eliasson described, early public opinion was predictably hostile to any plan to charge drivers for something that was thought of as “free.” However, with a combination of effective public education campaign and some bold political decision making during the early implementation phase in 2006, residents of Stockholm and the surrounding metro area came to see the benefits of the congestion price.

The public education campaign focused on the idea that the charge wasn’t a tax on driving. Instead, it was a fee that reduced traffic congestion. It reminded commuters that traffic-clogged streets are not “free” to use, and that congestion has costs: wasted time, wasted fuel and damage to the environment.

Residents realized that the congestion charge allowed for better traffic management without the need for expensive and disruptive new road building. Public support for the system, which hovered around 30 percent before the 2006 trial is now at close to 70 percent.

The Stockholm example teaches a number of crucial lessons for those interested in public policy. First, well-designed policy solutions can be practically effective in improving peoples’ lives if implemented and managed in a transparent and competent way. Second, the initial unpopularity of controversial ideas shouldn’t dissuade politicians from embracing bold solutions if they truly believe in them. People will notice the improvement and the system’s popularity will increase. Third, the public will support paying for real investment in improving infrastructure if the benefits are explained clearly and the results are visible.

Residents in cities like Stockholm and Singapore, which also has an effective road-pricing system, saw the positive effects of congestion pricing with their own eyes and were won around to the idea. Voters in Los Angeles and Denver supported the creation of dedicated revenue streams to fund transit expansion and improvement and are already beginning to enjoy the benefit of increased choice and reduced road traffic. There’s no reason to believe that the same wouldn’t be true for the voters of Chicago and Cook County.

What do you think? What type of fee or tax to support an expansion of transit and/or reduction in congestion could you support in your community?

1. Document the evidence of flooding in your community. All too quickly, as the sun shines, people will forget about the magnitude of their problems. But you’ll need this information—on the costs of the damage and other impacts—as you and your neighbors advocate for solutions over the coming months.

CNT is partnering with urban Illinois communities to gather information and photos of flooding impacts. If you get your village or municipality to circulate this survey link to property owners and they fill out the survey, we will compile and aggregate the information for your community free of charge (and anonymously), and provide it to you to share in your discussions. You can email us your photos directly.

2. Find out if your community is protected. Two crucial programs, run by FEMA, are designed specifically to help homes and businesses just like yours.

Our research in Cook County, IL, has found that while most (but not all) communities are benefiting from federally guaranteed insurance as part of the National Flood Insurance Program, far fewer are benefiting from the more comprehensive Community Rating System, which offers a suite of measures to guard against development that may aggravate your flooding problems, as well as discounted flood insurance. Our advice: get your community to participate NOW. (Don’t know if your community is participating? Email us.)

3. Plan properly. A key reason that your basement is flooded is the high levels of impervious surfaces in your neighborhoods: roads, roofs, parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, and patios are all contributing to your problems. Green infrastructure programs are designed to reduce run-off by absorbing this water. But having a few randomly located rain gardens or some permeable paving won’t solve the whole problem. Your community needs a comprehensive plan of action, with measurable targets, that’s tied into existing development work in the neighborhood. CNT has a specially designed process to help you. Contact us now, if you would like us to talk to your community about it.

Want to know more? Contact Harriet Festing, CNT’s Water Program Director.

#7 Feral Dogs and Community Development

Feral dogs. Not exactly what you think of when you think “Center for Neighborhood Technology,” right? Well…

To be fair, this story predates CNT by just a bit, but you might say it was a catalyst of sorts. Here’s how it goes:

In 1973, Scott Bernstein was involved in a seminar at Northwestern University that was investigating two important ideas:

1. The development of a system by which universities, rather than bringing ideas to communities with a top-down approach, could ask relevant questions in order to understand community needs and how a university might be able to assist; this was to become the Community Service Voucher Program.
2. The understanding of non-therapeutic determinants of health; what ailments send people to seek medical treatment and what can be done to make people healthier?

Since Scott had a background in designing medical record systems, it was suggested that he and a team of students be organized to go into local hospitals on the West Side of Chicago and re-code medical records into lay terms, adding specific reasons for injuries or ailments; basically, to put back in what the standardized medical codes stripped out.

Given access to a year’s worth of medical records from Bethany Hospital on Chicago’s West Side, the team was able to determine the top 10 reasons for hospital visits by community residents. The top five reasons were personal attack, traffic-related accidents, fires, falls, and respiratory difficulty. Rounding out the top 10 was an injury many might think of as inconsistent with city life: puncture wounds sustained as a result of dog bites.

That dog bites were among the top ten raised red flags for Scott and the team. What they found was that there were a lot of feral dogs, alley dogs, living in proximity to people in West Side neighborhoods. These stray dogs may have started as family pets or guard dogs, but as times got tight many were left to fend for themselves. Too often, they would clash with residents, causing injury.

Scott and team quickly saw that this public health problem could be solved at the community level. They worked with residents in West Garfield Park to develop a very safe way to capture the dogs, and offered a $5.00 reward for each dog brought to the Christian Action Ministry at 3932 W. Madison (where CNT later worked on a solar greenhouse project). The Chicago Police Department arranged for daily (or as-needed) transfer of the dogs to the Anti-Cruelty Society for health checks and to be made available for adoption.

As part of the project, the team asked residents to point out on a map where the dogs were caught: vacant lots, abandoned buildings, under-serviced alleys, etc. This provided invaluable data and illustrated the extent of the problem, and allowed residents to effectively address them through subsequent local community action.

This was community organizing at its best. For a few thousand dollars, the dog bite problem was solved in West Garfield Park. Police got credit for improving public safety, and Scott and the team learned critical lessons about the impact of community-level, community-based problem solving.

The model was extended to community intervention to improve traffic conditions (including “pothole parties”) and what’s today called traffic calming, and to improving nutrition through local urban agriculture. All of this led to the creation of CNT and the continuation of thinking about and implementing place-based solutions.

We’re celebrating CNT’s 35 years of impact on sustainable urban development through 35 weeks of posts like this one. If you have a story or picture from our past, please share it with Anjuli@cnt.org. Thanks!

CNT’s work is made possible, in part, through generous support from individual donors. Please click here to make a gift in honor of our 35th anniversary.

Next week: #8 Energy Efficiency in Pilsen, a Chicago neighborhood

The announcement came at a ULI Northwest luncheon headlined by Donald Shoup, who discussed the art and science of parking.

King County was interested in developing a tool that could be used to achieve a more balanced approach to parking for the region. Outdated parking requirements have led to parking supply that is not reflective of actual demand, which can have a direct impact on a jurisdiction’s ability to create compact, healthy communities.

The calculator can help analysts, planners, developers, and community members weigh factors that will affect parking use at multi-family housing sites. It will help them consider how much parking is “just enough” when making economic, regulatory, and community decisions about development.

“As with much of CNT’s location efficiency work, we have again found that urban form—access to jobs, concentrations of people, and regional transit access—explains travel demand,” said Scott Bernstein, CNT’s president. “Past studies have shown this to be true for auto ownership and use, so it makes sense that where urban form factors are strong, the need to provide parking spaces is reduced.”

The calculator’s estimates are based on a powerful model developed from current local data of actual parking use collected in field work on more than 200 developments in urban and suburban localities in the County. These parking use data were correlated with factors related to the building, its occupants, and its surroundings—particularly transit, parking pricing, and population and job concentrations—to build the model.

Preliminary findings of this research were recently published in the ITE Journal.

King County Multi-Family Residential Parking Calculator: www.rightsizeparking.org

Right Size Parking Project website: http://metro.kingcounty.gov/up/projects/right-size-parking/

For more information, please contact Daniel Rowe at King County Metro Transit.