Today on the Streetsblog Network, David Alpert at Greater Greater Washington
counters the accusation that, just because he believes in less
autocentric development, he hates cars. In an extremely eloquent and
thoughtful post, Alpert makes the distinction between "no more cars"
and "not more cars":
Photo by lizjones 112 via Flickr.
Advocates
for more walkable, bikeable, and transit-oriented places often face
criticism that we "hate cars." Gary Imhoff assumes that "nothing makes
[me] angrier than automobiles." And on yesterday's thread about "green"
companies giving away gas and parking, Fritz wrote, "The majority of
residents of the DC Metro Area aren't like you. It's perhaps the
greatest weakness among the anti-car brigades on this website: the near
impossibility of recognizing that not everyone wants to walk or bike as
their main mode of transportation."These responses rest on a logical fallacy. I've advocated for
new development to minimize auto dependence. But many take that to mean
that everyone ought to travel by train, bus, bike or foot. However, new
living patterns need not resemble existing living patterns. New
residents won't necessarily interact with communities in the exact same
way as existing residents. We don't need to get rid of cars. What we
need is to avoid adding many new cars...We are in the
middle of a paradigm shift in the design of our communities. The sprawl
model of development that predominated for sixty years isn't
sustainable and, more importantly, is no longer what the market wants.
Prices in established walkable neighborhoods are sky-high while nearby
walkable neighborhoods are gentrifying rapidly. We have enough
single-family homes for the next 20 years; in fact, nationwide,
analysts predict we'll have 22 million too many.
There'snothing evil about wanting to live in a house with a yard and a picketfence. Some government policies may unfairly subsidize that form ofliving with cheap infrastructure, but it's still a totally valid way tolive. It's just that there are lots of those houses. Meanwhile, therearen't enough condos and row houses in walkable neighborhoods...
TomCoumaris recently suggested the phrase "no more cars," which Imisinterpreted at first to mean "get rid of cars," but which he meantas "no additional cars." In effect, what advocates for livable andwalkable communities want is "not more cars" -- growth that doesn'tbring more cars. Some then misinterpret this as an attempt to ban cars-- "no more cars." It's a subtle difference, but an enormous one.Low-traffic growth is good for existing drivers as well. Low-trafficgrowth means less competition for the roadway space they're alreadyusing, and less pollution from people driving through their communitiesto get to new exurban ones farther out. We should all be able tosupport policies that allow growth but "not more cars."
Alpert's post has generated some great comments. Head on over and check it out.
Other things that caught our eye from around the network: New Geography
has a fascinating post about the commuting patterns of immigrants that
raises important policy questions about the allocation of transit
resources. At How We Drive, Tom Vanderbilt wonders if there's a silent majority in favor of red-light cameras. And Trains for America
reports on how the recession has brought Amtrak's ridership numbers
down. Interestingly, long-distance routes have taken less of a hit than
short hauls.
