Hi there, relatively new subscriber. Thanks so much for your writing, Addison. As someone new to this issue, I’m so curious what you consider to be the current lay of the land.
It seems possible that the theory of the housing problem is close to being won. I often hear multiple types of experts refer to the need to build.
The transit debate seems far from being settled. I hear smart people say silly things on this issue. But, then again, there seems to be a lot of excitement for train travel and electric bikes and scooters.
Long question short, where are we in the timeline?
Lately, I've been spending about one day a week exploring Chicago by bicycle, including going way out into the suburbs. It's been striking to me the extent to which the barriers to cycling and walking feel almost deliberate. Highway overpasses featuring 4 car lanes with 50-60 mph traffic and no bike lane or sidewalk. Designated trails or bike routes that cross high speed roads with no signaling for cars, and a sign that informs trail users that "cross traffic does not stop."
However, one thing that gives me hope is seeing how much better things could be with just a little effort. I can get 30 miles out into the suburbs traveling 90% of the time on fairly low stress bike routes. A lot of the remaining 10% could be fixed with fairly minor tweaks - a new bike lane here, a new traffic signal there, maybe the occasional new off-street trail to connect up existing trails and bike routes.. We can fix our cities, including a lot of suburbia, if we just have the will to do it.
Here are some books that influenced my understanding of cars and suburbia (short titles):
Robert Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias
Robert Fogelson, Bourgeois Nightmares
Dolores Hayden, Building Suburbia
Marc Weiss, The Rise of the Community Builders
Motordom is so durable and entrenched because "love of the automobile" is not just about the automobile. It is a support system for the ideal family in the ideal home in the ideal subdivision. It served the same function as the streetcar, but did it better.
I think that full-throated defenses of mobility are tragic moves for car critics. Cars truly are superior <i>mobility</i> devices. A better "move" is to claim that mobility is less important than access. The best rebuttals to car apologists are that all car-based mobility is costly and much of it is not even useful.
"'It should be irrelevant to them [a free people] by what means the exercise of personal mobility is denied, whether by imprisonment, bondage to an estate, revocation of a passport, or enclosure within an environment that encroaches on a person’s native ability to move.' [He means that mass motoring, in forcing out non-car means of transportation, has actually restricted freedom of movement fully understood.]"
This is a good point. Cars are great - even just as a tool. The problem is giving them unlimited access to everywhere means basically requiring them to go anywhere. And that alone is not great - but even more cynically, it sorta removes some of the things that WERE great about them. An hour long walk to work being replaced by an hour long drive is at best the same (pros and cons of less exertion, hour drive is more dangerous).
There are other ways to move people those distances efficiently and quickly, and there are other ways to move people without having to go those distances. There are times and places for cars, but the problem is we've made them every time and place and that has limited their effectiveness and made our world LESS accessible.
I am thinking at the conceptual level. Mobility maximation is a sub-optimal urban strategy regardless of mode. Master bedrooms have bathrooms attached because it's beneficial to have easy access to a bathroom where you sleep. I have been able to walk to work and it is even easier than using decent transit service. Cars are great for mobility and terrible for access. A robust transit system is pretty good for mobility, but it is great for urban access. Walking is poor for mobility, but with good land use, it is the best for access.
Will the automobile survive as a common means of transportation in the US? Not if the price of automobiles keeps rising, both electrical and internal combustion. Not if oil becomes rarer as we’re already squeezing it out of rocks. Not if there aren’t enough lithium, rare earth materials and copper. Not if the dollar loses its primacy as world reserve currency. Whether we want to maintain the automobile as a dominant transportation technology or not, the outcome may not be a matter of choice. If the automobile survives, it will be electric. I don’t think it will be a 100% replacement for internal combustion unless there are breakthroughs in battery technology that use cheaper, more abundant materials. If this technology will collapse, it might make sense to start phasing it out in cities now. Having experienced the gas crises of 1973 and 1979, I take nothing for granted.
“They didn’t need a crystal ball. All they needed to do was look at what was in front of them…”
Can Del Mastro cite any of the critical thinking in that era (broadly, 1945-1960) which called to stop,or slow or modify the building of limited access highways?
If he can offer any I’d love to follow-through on the documents. But I won’t be surprised if he can’t offer any because I think there was very little such critical thinking on the impact of the Interstate or any “freeway” system.
It is surprising, but that’s my observation: there was tragically very little thinking about what was happening and what would happen.
Hi there, relatively new subscriber. Thanks so much for your writing, Addison. As someone new to this issue, I’m so curious what you consider to be the current lay of the land.
It seems possible that the theory of the housing problem is close to being won. I often hear multiple types of experts refer to the need to build.
The transit debate seems far from being settled. I hear smart people say silly things on this issue. But, then again, there seems to be a lot of excitement for train travel and electric bikes and scooters.
Long question short, where are we in the timeline?
Lately, I've been spending about one day a week exploring Chicago by bicycle, including going way out into the suburbs. It's been striking to me the extent to which the barriers to cycling and walking feel almost deliberate. Highway overpasses featuring 4 car lanes with 50-60 mph traffic and no bike lane or sidewalk. Designated trails or bike routes that cross high speed roads with no signaling for cars, and a sign that informs trail users that "cross traffic does not stop."
However, one thing that gives me hope is seeing how much better things could be with just a little effort. I can get 30 miles out into the suburbs traveling 90% of the time on fairly low stress bike routes. A lot of the remaining 10% could be fixed with fairly minor tweaks - a new bike lane here, a new traffic signal there, maybe the occasional new off-street trail to connect up existing trails and bike routes.. We can fix our cities, including a lot of suburbia, if we just have the will to do it.
Here are some books that influenced my understanding of cars and suburbia (short titles):
Robert Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias
Robert Fogelson, Bourgeois Nightmares
Dolores Hayden, Building Suburbia
Marc Weiss, The Rise of the Community Builders
Motordom is so durable and entrenched because "love of the automobile" is not just about the automobile. It is a support system for the ideal family in the ideal home in the ideal subdivision. It served the same function as the streetcar, but did it better.
I think that full-throated defenses of mobility are tragic moves for car critics. Cars truly are superior <i>mobility</i> devices. A better "move" is to claim that mobility is less important than access. The best rebuttals to car apologists are that all car-based mobility is costly and much of it is not even useful.
"'It should be irrelevant to them [a free people] by what means the exercise of personal mobility is denied, whether by imprisonment, bondage to an estate, revocation of a passport, or enclosure within an environment that encroaches on a person’s native ability to move.' [He means that mass motoring, in forcing out non-car means of transportation, has actually restricted freedom of movement fully understood.]"
This is a good point. Cars are great - even just as a tool. The problem is giving them unlimited access to everywhere means basically requiring them to go anywhere. And that alone is not great - but even more cynically, it sorta removes some of the things that WERE great about them. An hour long walk to work being replaced by an hour long drive is at best the same (pros and cons of less exertion, hour drive is more dangerous).
There are other ways to move people those distances efficiently and quickly, and there are other ways to move people without having to go those distances. There are times and places for cars, but the problem is we've made them every time and place and that has limited their effectiveness and made our world LESS accessible.
I am thinking at the conceptual level. Mobility maximation is a sub-optimal urban strategy regardless of mode. Master bedrooms have bathrooms attached because it's beneficial to have easy access to a bathroom where you sleep. I have been able to walk to work and it is even easier than using decent transit service. Cars are great for mobility and terrible for access. A robust transit system is pretty good for mobility, but it is great for urban access. Walking is poor for mobility, but with good land use, it is the best for access.
Ahh, those last 3 sentences are a great summation. Thanks
Will the automobile survive as a common means of transportation in the US? Not if the price of automobiles keeps rising, both electrical and internal combustion. Not if oil becomes rarer as we’re already squeezing it out of rocks. Not if there aren’t enough lithium, rare earth materials and copper. Not if the dollar loses its primacy as world reserve currency. Whether we want to maintain the automobile as a dominant transportation technology or not, the outcome may not be a matter of choice. If the automobile survives, it will be electric. I don’t think it will be a 100% replacement for internal combustion unless there are breakthroughs in battery technology that use cheaper, more abundant materials. If this technology will collapse, it might make sense to start phasing it out in cities now. Having experienced the gas crises of 1973 and 1979, I take nothing for granted.
Del Mastro writes:
“They didn’t need a crystal ball. All they needed to do was look at what was in front of them…”
Can Del Mastro cite any of the critical thinking in that era (broadly, 1945-1960) which called to stop,or slow or modify the building of limited access highways?
If he can offer any I’d love to follow-through on the documents. But I won’t be surprised if he can’t offer any because I think there was very little such critical thinking on the impact of the Interstate or any “freeway” system.
It is surprising, but that’s my observation: there was tragically very little thinking about what was happening and what would happen.