The Center for Neighborhood Technology is a non-profit organization, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, which is committed to sustainable development and livable urban communities. CNT, as an “innovations center for urban sustainability”, researches, invents, and tests urban strategies that use resources more efficiently and equitably. Over the years, CNT’s work, especially in the areas of climate, energy, water, transportation and community development, has paid off by fueling a generation of community development and learning institutions, earning CNT a reputation as an economic innovator and leader in the field of creative sustainable development.The organization was founded in 1978 by Scott Bernstein, Stanley Hallett, and Dr. John Martin. It has recently grown to include an office in San Francisco, California. CNT has been responsible for developing a variety of projects. It launched two non-profits to advance its mission; Elevate Energy, an organization that develops and implements initiatives to help consumers and communities control energy costs and reduce energy use; and I-GO, a membership-based car sharing organization that provides hourly rental of a fleet of cars located across Chicago and its surrounding suburbs. It also created Wireless Community Networks, a wireless internet access project which uses a mesh network. In addition, their Urban Practice Consulting offers a unique menu of tools and strategies which can be applied individually or collectively to urban development and redevelopment issues. Wikipedia.
Haas P.M.,Center for Neighborhood Technology
Housing Policy Debate | Year: 2016
It is now accepted that to have an understanding of housing affordability one must consider not only housing costs, but also the transportation costs associated with that household location. To make this information readily accessible to the public, the United States government created an Internet resource, the Location Affordability Portal – Version 2 (www.locationaffordability.info), to provide housing and transportation costs for every neighborhood in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Although the statistical model at the heart of this resource was designed for predictive accuracy, its design and parameter estimates can provide additional insights into the interaction of housing cost and transportation choices (and thus its cost). This study describes the development and explores the policy implications (and limitations) of this structural equations model, the Location Affordability Index Model – Version 2 (LAIM2). © 2016 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Center for Neighborhood Technology | Date: 2010-06-22
Biodegradable planting matrices for horticultural use for organizing and planting garden plant plugs, namely, biodegradable ground templates made from paper, peat and straw into which plant plugs are placed for planting. Garden plant plugs consisting of living garden plants and soil medium sold as a unit. Online information service, namely, providing information to gardeners on the subject of garden plant selection and landscape garden design.
Center for Neighborhood Technology | Date: 2012-07-03
Downloadable electronic data files and databases, namely, bus and passenger train schedules and routes, for use with computer software. Providing a web site featuring information on the subject of transportation, namely, bus and passenger train schedules and routes; providing a database in the field of transportation, namely, bus and passenger train schedules. Application service provider services, namely, hosting, managing, developing, and maintaining applications, software, and web sites, in the transportation field, namely, bus and passenger train schedules and routes.
News Article | September 26, 2008
America is built around the automobile. Big cities may have decent transit systems, but most of us spend a lot of time slogging through traffic on a highway. Say what you will, but the National Highway System is a crucial part of our transportation infrastructure. Trouble is, it wasn’t built with city dwellers in mind. Hulking expressways and overpasses too often bisect our cities, dividing neighborhoods, blocking access to waterfronts and promoting blight. Many were built decades ago, and as they fall into disrepair, some activists say they should be razed entirely. Replacing them with neighborhood-friendly boulevards would, they say, foster revitalization, restore communities and save taxpayers billions in construction costs. "There’s a whole generation of elevated highways in cities that are at the end of their design life," says John Norquist, head of the Congress for the New Urbanism. "Instead of rebuilding them at enormous expense, cities have an opportunity to undo what proved to be major urban-planning blunder." It’s a novel idea that’s worked in cities like San Francisco, Portland and Milwaukee. Norquist has a list of other cities that oughtta fire up the wrecking ball and take down a highway. "Freeways Without Futures" outlines 10 urban highways that have long since outlived their usefulness. It was compiled by the Congress for the New Urbanism and the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and it focuses on those areas with the best chance of removing a freeway and replacing it with a boulevard. "The Federal Highway Fund just received a short-term bailout," Norquist says. "The money that does exist can be invested much more efficiently in surface streets and transit." This is not an abstract idea for Norquist. He was mayor of Milwaukee when the city replaced the Park East Freeway with McKinley Boulevard six years ago. CNU says averaged assessed land values in the area climbed 180 percent between 2001 and 2006. San Francisco saw similar gains after razing the Embarcadero and Central freeways. "Fifty years ago, when there was flight from cities, industrialized waterfronts seemed like a convenient place to run freeways," Norquist says. "The result for the neighborhoods has been blight. Cities like San Francisco that have removed freeways and reclaimed waterfronts have turned them into magnets for people and investment." CNU says the following cities could enjoy similar benefits if they’d raze these 10 highways: That’s the list. What’s yours? Use the Reddit widget below to tell us which highways you would tear down, why you’d raze it and what you’d put in its place. Tell us what freeway you’d take down and why, and vote for those you agree with. While you can submit as many suggestions as you want, you can only submit one every 30 minutes. No HTML allowed.
News Article | January 21, 2010
If we’d spent as much federal stimulus money on public transportation as we spent on highways, we would have created twice as much work and put a bigger dent in the unemployment rate. That’s the analysis of stimulus spending by Smart Growth America, the Center for Neighborhood Technology and U.S. PIRG, the public-policy lobbying group. Smart Growth America found that every billion dollars spent on public transportation produced 16,419 job-months, while the same amount spent on highway infrastructure projects produced 8,781 job-months. Now it is warning that the Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010 (.pdf), the $154 billion jobs bill the House of Representatives passed last month, could make the same mistake in funding the wrong priorities. The legislation, which the Senate is expected to take up early this year, would finance everything from renovating schools to putting more cops on the street. It is funded in part with money set aside for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, also known as the Wall Street bailout. The bill allocates $27.1 billion for highways and other surface transportation and just $8.4 billion for public transportation. “When the Senate takes the bill up and it goes back to the House, they ought to take a look at their own data and readjust the proportions,” William Schroeer, state policy director for Smart Growth America, told Wired.com. “Since it’s a jobs bill, that seems to us to be something they ought to think very seriously about.” By splitting public transportation and highway funding equally, Schroeer said, the bill could provide 71,415 more job-months of work than it would by favoring highway spending. That is enough work to give 6,000 more people full-time year-round employment. According to SGA, public transportation spending leads more directly to job growth than highway spending for several reasons. First, less money is spent acquiring land, which means more money is spent actually building something. Second, all those buses, trains and subways need people to operate them and maintain the infrastructure. And third, public transit requires a workforce with more diverse skills than highway construction. Even better, Schroeer said, public transit can help save jobs because it allows people to get to work — and those are jobs Smart Growth America didn’t include in its analysis. When transit programs are cut or don’t exist to begin with, “there’s a negative impact on folks’ mobility to get to work, to get to education,” Schroeer said. “It’s part of the fabric of communities, whether you use it or not.” One reason public transit got short shrift in the stimulus package and some policymakers don’t see the merit of such projects is the misconception that transit projects aren’t “shovel-ready,” and — as a result — job growth would lag. The report proves that myth wrong. “In today’s environment, there are so many public transportation needs, and as a result there are so many public transportation projects that are ready to go, there’s no difference in the spend rates between roads and public transportation,” Schroeer said. The federal money being thrown around in Washington includes a provision that a debt-ridden transit agency can’t use it to pay off existing liabilities or, say, build a new subway line it will have to shut it down when operating expenses become cost-prohibitive. That provides a measure of assurance that the money will be spent creating jobs and financing sustainable transit projects. “The federal assistance that’s being discussed could be used for a number of things, but debt is not one of them.” Schroeer said. “You only get reimbursed for capital construction, maintenance or preventative maintenance — and you can spend 10 percent of the capital on operating expenses. None of that is debt.” The bottom line is, investing heavily in public transportation puts more people to work while creating or improving infrastructure we need more of. It’s a win-win. Photo: Portland, Oregon, and its transit agency TriMet used $1.6 million in federal stimulus funds to repair bricks in 20 intersections, a project TriMet says prevented 23 layoffs. Flickr/Thomas Le Ngo.