Transportation For America » Deciphering a trend in transportation depends heaviliy on one’s perspective

Deciphering a trend in transportation depends heaviliy on one’s perspective

July 6, 2011
By Stephen Lee Davis

13.BikeLane.15P.NW.WDC.2May2011 Originally uploaded by ElvertBarnes to Flickr.

There was a lot of talk among transportation advocates and bloggers about this New York Times article last week, Across Europe, Irking Drivers Is Urban Policy:

While American cities are synchronizing green lights to improve traffic flow and offering apps to help drivers find parking, many European cities are doing the opposite: creating environments openly hostile to cars. The methods vary, but the mission is clear — to make car use expensive and just plain miserable enough to tilt drivers toward more environmentally friendly modes of transportation.

Cities including Vienna to Munich and Copenhagen have closed vast swaths of streets to car traffic. Barcelona and Paris have had car lanes eroded by popular bike-sharing programs. Drivers in London and Stockholm pay hefty congestion charges just for entering the heart of the city. And over the past two years, dozens of German cities have joined a national network of “environmental zones” where only cars with low carbon dioxide emissions may enter.

Think for a moment about the question left begging after seeing the headline and reading these opening paragraphs: “why?” As in, why are these changes being made in these cities? Is it a pernicious top-down scheme to make driving miserable? Or is it something else entirely?

Just like in a handful of American cities that are bucking the conventional street engineering wisdom of the last 50 years, this isn’t happening by nefarious top-down diktat in these democracies. These changes are the product of consensus emerging over time about just what kind of city people want to live in and how it should work. The residents of these cities are making it clear that they want places that are enjoyable to traverse on foot; that they’re all pedestrians first. They want alternatives to driving, because gas is almost unbearably expensive. Streets should be safe to walk or bike, no matter your age or ability. They want and expect public transportation that is fast, efficient and gets them to the destinations they want to visit. And leaders are responding to demand by changing the city in accordance to these wishes.

Again, these changes are not happening because an oppressive regime has repressed the voice of the people and foisted unwanted transformations on their cities to bring chaos to their lives. These changes are happening because citizens are asking for them of their democratic governments.

But the policies themselves are one thing. We were intrigued by a strategic question, which we asked on twitter over the course of several tweets:

Do you think the framing in this heavily-forwarded NYT story on Euro traffic is wise to use by US transportation advocates? Or phrased another way: is it wise to talk about these positive changes in a way that sounds like punishment for majority of people (that drive?) And again, our question is not about the policy or the actual changes themselves — it’s about the messaging and framing. Should we use it?

The opinions shared on twitter spanned the spectrum, but a handful of people felt that it would do more harm than good if the ultimate result is resentment from a significant segment of the population. The tide is turning in the U.S. in many cities and suburbs, with more than 100 jurisdictions passing complete streets policies, for example, but if the discussion devolves to an argument with clear winners and losers and an us-versus-them mentality, we’ll lose that momentum as changes become increasingly polarizing and politicized. (Or moreso, in many places.)

Of course, it’s all a matter of perspective, as so neatly summed up by Grist’s Sarah Goodyear. If you view moving speeding traffic as the primary point of our streets, you might view these changes — no matter how democratically implemented — as unwanted and “stifling.” If you think that our streets should be places for moving people, no matter what they’re using to move along, you might view them a little more positively:

The Times piece itself could have just as easily been titled “Europe Encourages Alternatives to Driving.” By adequately funding public transit and creating safe places for people to walk and bike, that’s what so many of the continent’s cities are doing.