+
upworthy

urban areas

Unless you're a child, New York City resident, or UPS driver, chances are you've made a left turn in your car at least once this week.

Chances are, you didn't think too much about how you did it or why you did it that way.

You just clicked on your turn signal...

...and turned left.

GIF from United States Auto Club.


The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles instructs drivers to "try to use the left side of the intersection to help make sure that you do not interfere with traffic headed toward you that wants to turn left," as depicted in this thrilling official state government animation:

GIF from New York Department of Motor Vehicles.

Slick, smooth, and — in theory — as safe as can be.

Your Drivers Ed teacher would give you full marks for that beautifully executed maneuver.

[rebelmouse-image 19530938 dam="1" original_size="500x332" caption="GIF from "Baywatch"/NBC." expand=1]GIF from "Baywatch"/NBC.

Your great-grandfather, on the other hand, would be horrified.

[rebelmouse-image 19530939 dam="1" original_size="400x309" caption="GIF from "Are You Afraid of the Dark"/Nickelodeon." expand=1]GIF from "Are You Afraid of the Dark"/Nickelodeon.

Before 1930, if you wanted to hang a left in a medium-to-large American city, you most likely did it like so:

[rebelmouse-image 19530940 dam="1" original_size="700x284" caption="Photo via Fighting Traffic/Facebook." expand=1]Photo via Fighting Traffic/Facebook.

Instead of proceeding in an arc across the intersection, drivers carefully proceeded straight out across the center line of the road they were turning on and turned at a near-90-degree angle.

Often, there was a giant cast-iron tower in the middle of the road to make sure drivers didn't cheat.

Some were pretty big. Photo by Topical Press Agency/Getty Images.

These old-timey driving rules transformed busy intersections into informal roundabouts, forcing cars to slow down so that they didn't hit pedestrians from behind.

[rebelmouse-image 19530942 dam="1" original_size="480x205" caption="GIF from "Time After Time"/Warner Bros." expand=1]GIF from "Time After Time"/Warner Bros.

Or so that, if they did, it wasn't too painful.

"There was a real struggle first of all by the urban majority against cars taking over the street, and then a sort of counter-struggle by the people who wanted to sell cars," explains Peter Norton, Associate Professor of History at the University of Virginia and author of "Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City."

Norton posted the vintage left-turn instructional image, originally published in a 1919 St. Louis drivers' manual — to Facebook on July 9. While regulations were laxer in suburban and rural areas, he explains, the sharp right-angle turn was standard in nearly every major American city through the late '20s.

“That left turn rule was a real nuisance if you were a driver, but it was a real blessing if you were a walker," he says.

Early traffic laws focused mainly on protecting pedestrians from cars, which were considered a public menace.

Pedestrians on the Bowery in New York City, 1900. Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images.

For a few blissful decades after the automobile was invented, the question of how to prevent drivers from mowing down all of midtown every day was front-of-mind for many urban policymakers.

Pedestrians, Norton explains, accounted for a whopping 75 percent of road deaths back then. City-dwellers who, unlike their country counterparts, often walked on streets were predictably pretty pissed about that.

In 1903, New York City implemented one of the first traffic ordinances in the country, which codified the right-angle left. Initially, no one knew or cared, so the following year, the city stuck a bunch of big metal towers in the middle of the intersections, which pretty well spelled things out.

A Traffic Tower keeps watch at the intersection of 42nd Street and 5th Avenue in New York City in 1925. Photo by Topical Press Agency/Getty Images.

Some cities installed unmanned versions, dubbed "silent policemen," which instructed motorists to "keep to the right."

Drivers finally got the message, and soon, the right-angle left turn spread to virtually every city in America.

Things were pretty good for pedestrians — for a while.

In the 1920s, that changed when automobile groups banded together to impose a shiny new left turn on America's drivers.

According to Norton, a sales slump in 1922 to 1923 convinced many automakers that they'd maxed out their market potential in big cities. Few people, it seemed, wanted to drive in urban America. Parking spaces were nonexistent, traffic was slow-moving, and turning left was a time-consuming hassle. Most importantly, there were too many people on the road.

In order to attract more customers, they needed to make cities more hospitable to cars.

Thus began an effort to shift the presumed owner of the road, "from the pedestrian to the driver."

FDR Drive off-ramps in 1955. Photo by Three Lions/Getty Images.

"It was a multi-front campaign," Norton says.

The lobbying started with local groups — taxi cab companies, truck fleet operators, car dealers associations — and eventually grew to include groups like the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce, which represented most major U.S. automakers.

Car advocates initially worked to take control of the traffic engineering profession. The first national firm, the Albert Erskine Bureau for Street Traffic Research, was founded in 1925 at Harvard University, with funds from Studebaker to make recommendations to cities on how to design streets.

Driving fast, they argued, was not inherently dangerous, but something that could be safe with proper road design.

Drivers weren't responsible for road collisions. Pedestrians were.

Therefore, impeding traffic flow to give walkers an advantage at the expense of motor vehicle operators, they argued, is wasteful, inconvenient, and inefficient.

Out went the right-angle left turn.

Industry-led automotive interest groups began producing off-the-shelf traffic ordinances modeled on Los Angeles' driver-friendly 1925 traffic code, including our modern-day left turn, which was adopted by municipalities across the country.

The towering silent policemen were replaced by dome-shaped bumps called "traffic mushrooms," which could be driven over.

[rebelmouse-image 19530946 dam="1" original_size="700x465" caption="A modern "traffic mushroom" in Forbes, New South Wales. Photo by Mattinbgn/Wikimedia Commons." expand=1]A modern "traffic mushroom" in Forbes, New South Wales. Photo by Mattinbgn/Wikimedia Commons.

Eventually the bumps were removed altogether. Barriers and double yellow lines that ended at the beginning of an intersection encouraged drivers to begin their left turns immediately.

The old way of hanging a left was mostly extinct by 1930 as the new, auto-friendly ordinances proved durable.

So ... is the new left turn better?

Yes. Also, no.

It's complicated.

The shift to a "car-dominant status quo," Norton explains, wasn't completely manufactured — nor entirely negative.

An L.A. motorway in 1953. Photo by L.J. Willinger/Getty Images.

As more Americans bought cars, public opinion of who should run the road really did change. The current left turn model is better and more efficient for drivers — who have to cross fewer lanes of traffic — and streets are less chaotic than they were in the early part of the 20th century.

Meanwhile, pedestrian deaths have declined markedly over the years. While walkers made up 75% of all traffic fatalities in the 1920s in some cities, by 2015, just over 5,000 pedestrians were killed by cars on the street, roughly 15% of all vehicle-related deaths.

There's a catch, of course.

While no one factor fully accounts for the decrease in pedestrian deaths, Norton believes the industry's success in making roadways completely inhospitable to walkers helps explain the trend.

Simply put, fewer people are hit because fewer people are crossing the street (or walking at all). The explosion of auto-friendly city ordinances — which, among other things, allowed drivers to make faster, more aggressive left turns — pushed people off the sidewalks and into their own vehicles.

When that happened, the nature of traffic accidents changed.

A man fixes a bent fender, 1953. Photo by Sherman/Three Lions/Getty Images.

"Very often, a person killed in a car in 1960 would have been a pedestrian a couple of decades earlier," Norton says.

We still live with that car-dominant model and the challenges that arise from it. Urban design that prioritizes drivers over walkers contributes to sprawl and, ultimately, to carbon emissions. A system engineered to facilitate auto movement also allows motor vehicle operators to avoid responsibility for sharing the street in subtle ways. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists three tips to prevent injuries and deaths from car-human collisions — all for pedestrians, including "carrying a flashlight when walking," and "wearing retro-reflective clothing."

A Minneapolis Star-Tribune analysis found that, of over 3,000 total collisions with pedestrians (including 95 fatalities) in the Twin Cities area between 2010 and 2014, only 28 drivers were charged and convicted a crime — mostly misdemeanors.

Norton says he's encouraged, however, by recent efforts to reclaim city streets and make them safe for walkers.

Pedestrians walk through New York's Times Square, 2015. Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images.

That includes a push by groups like Transportation Alternatives to install pedestrian plazas and bike lanes and to promote bus rapid transit. It also includes Vision Zero, a safety initiative in cities across America, which aims to end traffic fatalities by upgrading road signage, lowering speed limits, and installing more traffic circles, among other things.

As a historian, Norton hopes Americans come to understand that the way we behave on the road isn't static or, necessarily, what we naturally prefer. Often, he explains, it results from hundreds of conscious decisions made over decades.

"We're surrounded by assumptions that are affecting our choices, and we don't know where those assumptions come from because we don't know our own history," he says.

Even something as mindless as hanging a left.

This article was originally published on July 14, 2017.

I live in a city and I own a car, so parking is never far from my mind.

Will I get a space in front of the house? Is it worth driving downtown, or should I take the bus? Do I have to parallel park if I want to try that new Thai place? (If the answer to the latter is yes, we're ordering in.)

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.


Just a few months ago, if you'd have asked me about free parking, I wouldn't have had a strong opinion.

I'd probably shrug and say something to the effect of, "It's good, I guess."

And, on the surface, what's not to like? It's convenient. It's time-saving. It makes neighborhoods accessible and encourages travel.

Free parking is all of this and more. But, sadly, it's also not actually free.

GIF from "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt."

My wife heard a report on the radio about the hidden costs of free parking and came home fired up. "You have to look into this," she said. So I did. And I couldn't believe what I found.

As it turns out, free parking costs drivers and non-drivers a substantial amount of money.

Listen close because I'm about to reveal some huge secrets, and I might change your mind about free parking while I'm at it. Here's what you need to know:

1. Land: They paved paradise and well ... it wasn't great.

In most U.S. cities, parking is the single biggest land use. Not parks. Not schools. Not small businesses. Nope, all that land is going to paved beds for sleeping cars.

In fact, nearly 200 square miles (or 14%) of incorporated land in Los Angeles County, California, is devoted to parking spaces. That's more than 18 million spaces or just over three for each automobile registered in the county. But Los Angeles isn't the only place where cars at rest have created a serious problem.

Overall, there are approximately eight parking spaces for each car in the U.S. according to a report published in 2010.That's wild! And while the number of local spaces per car depends on the community, many spaces actually go unused fairly often.

As more and more people move to cities (the United Nations estimates 66% of the world's population will live in urban areas by 2050), this is going to be a big problem because congestion, traffic, and space will be of the utmost importance.

So yeah, free parking is a terrible use of space and keeps communities from achieving the mixed-use buildings our urban future requires.

Photo by iStock.

2. Hate traffic? Free parking isn't helping.

When gas prices go up, people think twice about driving. They might start to carpool, consider taking the bus, or even ride their bikes. (Hats off to those brave commuters.)

But we don't treat parking like gasoline, which is kind of weird. Most destinations offer it for free, and when they don't, there's often street parking close by. This encourages drivers to circle their destinations, looking for free or reduced parking. An estimated 30% of cars driving in central business districts are actually looking for a place to park. It wastes time and gas and increases harmful emissions.

So, yeah, free parking is also messing with the environment. Still on the free parking train? Just wait.

3. Free parking is paid for by everyone, and people who don't drive essentially pay twice.

Many cities require new buildings to offer off-street parking. It gives these stores, restaurants, and businesses a larger footprint. And this leads to sprawl, which is a big challenge for anyone who doesn't drive or can't afford to drive. Don't believe me? Take a city bus across town.

Photo by Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images.

Plus, the store or business has to foot the bill for the parking lot, and that fee is often passed on to their customers in higher priced goods or services. So when you buy your milk at the grocery store, you're paying for the privilege to park out front, even if you walked there.

Starting to hate free parking? Yep.

4.  If we're not thinking about parking, we're not thinking about the future.

As writer Emile Rusch of the Denver Post said, "The future of parking is no parking."

Hear me (and her) out: As populations move toward more urban centers, something else is moving with them — technology. Autonomous cars, an idea once relegated to a Jetsons-like pipe-dream, are making their way into our communities.  Luxury automaker Volvo recently announced it'll have autonomous cars on the road by 2021. And Uber is testing pilot models.

Uber is preparing for the autonomous vehicle revolution with pilot models of their self-driving cars. Photo by Angelo Merendino/AFP/Getty Images.

These self-driving cars will open up new opportunities for ride-sharing. Users could conceivably request a car; work, read, or relax on their commute; and have it drop them off at their destination. Just one shared autonomous vehicle could take as many as 11 cars off the road. It also frees up their parking spaces.

Photo by iStock.

Some cities are preparing for this not-so-distant future by building parking garages that can be converted to something else like retail or office space down the line. Others, well, aren't. Parking isn't even on their radar, and that's a big problem.

Soon, we could have empty parking spaces everywhere, costing us extra money and taking up valuable space in crowded urban areas. Building free parking lots just isn't a smart decision.

So what can we do? One solution is a concept you might be familiar with: surge pricing.

Smart parking meters and spaces charge drivers different prices based on demand. In this scenario, parking in a popular new shopping district would be more expensive than parking by an old strip mall. Street parking near a church might be four times more expensive Sunday mornings than Thursday nights. Demand pricing based on location or time of day forces drivers to think twice about how and when they travel to their destinations.

Photo by iStock.

Donald Shoup, Distinguished Research Professor in the Department of Urban Planning at UCLA and one of the world's foremost parking experts is all about demand pricing. He suggests pricing parking spaces so that about 15% (or one or two spaces) are available on any given block. To keep business owners and residents happy, Shoup believes the revenue generated from the higher prices should stay in the neighborhood and go toward sidewalks, removing graffiti, and improving roads.

"Demand-based pricing is remarkable for how little planners need to know to do their job. They simply compare the actual parking occupancy with the desired parking occupancy and every few weeks they nudge prices up or down accordingly," Shoup said in an interview with Xerox. "Seeking the optimal occupancy becomes the new way to set prices, and it can replace intense, emotional, political choices with evidence-based decisions."

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

Smart meters with demand pricing are already in use in San Francisco and Seattle, but taking them nationwide will be a costly endeavor.

Many other cities use smart meters for payment but haven't tapped into demand pricing.

Putting smart meters in place, changing zoning requirements, and building forward thinking cities around alternative forms of transit isn't easy or cheap.

But neither is progress. And come to think of it, neither is free parking.

Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images.

True
Starbucks Upstanders

Did you know that in some cities in America, it is illegal to give food to someone who is homeless?

The list of cities that criminalize feeding homeless individuals isn’t a short one. In many cities, it's also illegal to sit or sleep in public areas, leaving homeless individuals with no safe place to spend the night. These laws are essentially making it illegal to be homeless.

Image via Starbucks. All photos used with permission.


Jerome Murdough, a 56-year-old homeless veteran, was trying to sleep in the stairwell of a building on a cold night in Harlem in 2014. He was arrested for trespassing and put in jail. Susceptible to heat due to his antipsychotic and antiseizure medications, he ended up dying in his cell, likely as a result of overheating.

Murdough’s is an extreme case, but it highlights the absurdity and cruelty of how we’ve tried to tackle homelessness in this country. Instead of measures being put in place to help individuals without a home gain stability and safety, they're often punished for their circumstances — making it even harder to get back on their feet.

Lloyd Pendleton saw the flawed way homelessness was being addressed and thought there had to be a better way:

In particular, Pendleton took issue with the requirements homeless individuals had to meet before they could receive help.

He recalls that the conventional wisdom in the late 1990s was that a homeless person needed to be "clean, dry, and sober" in order to receive housing assistance from the very institutions designated to help them. He wanted to give people — especially those who are chronically homeless — the chance for stability first, so they could get back on their feet, instead of requiring them to try to address these issues in the midst of chaos. The solution is so simple it seems rather obvious: housing first.

Housing is key. Housing means stability.

Recognizing this, Pendleton stepped up and implemented a "housing-first" method of rehabilitation in Salt Lake City, Utah. And the results have been incredible.

Pendleton said, "In 2005, we decided to do a pilot, which ended up with 17 individuals off the streets, straight into housing. 22 months later, all 17 were still housed. It was a powerful turning point for us."

Families are able to get their feet on the ground and live a "normal" life again, within a supportive community. Residents have a chance to take care of medical issues. To get their teeth fixed. To reconnect with their families. To take care of the problems plaguing them so they can move forward, healthy and confident. Most importantly, to have hope.

In the 10 years since the program’s introduction, Utah reduced its chronically homeless population by an incredible 91%. Cities across the country have looked to it as a model for effectively reducing chronic homelessness.

Said Pendleton, "You can never end homelessness, but you can give them housing opportunities. That can be done."

Most Shared

Singer-songwriter Andrew Bird's latest music video tackles a tough topic.

Andrew Bird's latest music video shines a light on an important issue.

By the time September rolled around, the city of Chicago was on the verge of its 500th murder in 2016.

In just over nine months, nearly 3,000 people in the city were shot, roughly matching the total for all of 2015. While the root cause of this violence can be debated, one thing people from around the political spectrum should be able to agree on is that something needs to be done.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.


Musician Andrew Bird wanted to do something about gun violence, especially as it concerned his hometown of Chicago.

That's why he teamed up with Everytown for Gun Safety last fall. Together, Bird and the Everytown movement found a way to make gun safety a key theme in both his latest album ("Are You Serious?") and its ensuing tour.

Andrew Bird performs at Coachella. Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images for Coachella.

"The rhetoric around gun violence has gotten so reactionary that it seems no one is talking sense," says Bird in a press release. "Everytown is an organization that is talking sense, making points that no one can argue with."

What started as a plan to donate $1 from every ticket on his U.S. tour and sell special edition T-shirts in support of Everytown's cause quickly turned into something much more ambitious.

Bird and Everytown joined forces with director Natalie Morales to create a music video meant to highlight not just the body count, but as Bird says, "the psychic toll that gun violence is taking on our citizens."

In this latest endeavor, a music video for Bird's 2013 song, "Pulaski at Night," Bird, Morales, and Everytown take a look at the new reality of what it means to be a kid in America — specifically, one in Chicago.

The "day in the life" style video centers around a single student as he navigates his way through disruptive lockdown drills during class and as he passes pop-up memorials for gun victims between home and school. It's a reminder that the world isn't as safe or as innocent as we'd like it to be for our children.

Image by Andrew Bird/YouTube.

"I used to throw up my hands and say, ‘What can we do? It's complicated,’ but that’s lame," adds Bird. "There’s so much we can do and Everytown is out there doing it."

Will this music video single-handedly put an end to gun violence? Of course not. Will it spark conversation about what we, as a society, can do to address this problem? Absolutely.

Everytown is pretty thrilled to have artists like Bird and Morales on board in their mission to promote gun safety through common sense solutions.

Jason Rzepka, director of cultural engagement at Everytown, stresses the importance of using a variety of strategies in bringing attention to this important issue, saying, "Eradicating gun violence from our communities will require all of us, using every tool at our disposal."

You can watch the brand new music video for Andrew Bird's "Pulaski at Night" below.