I think that what we are experiencing today in American metropolitan areas is a by-product of the pace at which technology and globalization are changing our society, its wealth distribution, the way we live and the way we relate to resources. Cities take a long time to build and mature. Changing a city in a fundamental way is a long-term project. It should not be surprising that people are beginning to take the initiative to use cities in ways different than their parents or grandparents. Their needs have been rendered different by the larger forces that are shaping the global economy, they have come to expect different things from urban life, and they can't afford to wait for cities to physically change.

So, they are voting with their feet: in Manhattan, they are sunning themselves in the middle of Broadway Avenue, in mini parks stenciled in place overnight; and in San Francisco they are pushing for re-striping of streets to accommodate bike lanes, and for traffic calming measures like speed humps and traffic circles, and for better pedestrian lighting on sidewalks, and for concrete medians to be blasted open so that flowers can be planted in them. All of these projects have some key characteristics in common: they are low cost; they are localized and neighborhood-oriented, and often entirely neighborhood-driven; they are scalable and don’t appear to depend on grand visions or funding schemes or network design principles; and they can be implemented relatively quickly. Instant infrastructure; don’t even add water. It may not be very high quality, it may ultimately not even be the real thing, as far as quality urban space is concerned, but it’s a fast, almost instantaneous response to the market need.

As long as these projects remain neighborhood focused, they move along quickly and effectively. But American cities are much more than collections of village-like neighborhoods loosely cobbled together. There is a legacy of infrastructure systems: transportation, utilities, civic spaces, museums and the like, in most cases built many decades ago with massive public investment, specifically intended to address the economic reality of that time and the growth patterns then anticipated and, yes, reflecting a societal vision of what the city of the future would be like. The images that fueled that vision and the construction of those legacy systems are still with us, and they often get in the way of new ways of thinking about the city, particularly when a compelling new vision is not cogently articulated up front when we make the case for new projects.

Things can flare up when the utility of pieces of those legacy systems (perhaps the Sheridan Expressway in the Bronx is one of them) is questioned. This is because, once infrastructure is built, people use it and get used to having it and, for the most part, actually derive utility from it. There are no empty freeways in American cities. That is not to say that they are the most efficient use of the land or the best transportation solution, or even a desirable solution. But enough people use them that attempts to tear them down invariably result in heated civic fights. There is typically enough of a constituency on either side of the issue. In San Francisco, for example, it took us 11 years and three ballot measures to finally decide to tear down the damaged portion of the Central Freeway, a double-decker monstrosity from the early days of the freeway era, and turn it into a boulevard. And that was after the Loma Prieta Earthquake actually demolished half of it. It then took us several years to design the boulevard, because it had to be all things to all people, though that could not reasonably be expected. There had to be some compromise, because a city street cannot have the capacity of a grade-separated freeway, and because the impacts of having the traffic on the ground cannot be compared on a one for-one basis with those of an elevated freeway structure.

We now have a boulevard which carries a good deal of traffic, provides much better options for pedestrians and bikers, and it has completely beautified and revitalized the area once severely blighted by the elevated freeway structure. It’s not perfect. There are queues at rush hour because of capacity constraints, right angle turns, and conflicts with cross traffic. And there’s a lot more traffic on the ground than used to be the case, but the numbers are very close to what our travel demand model predicted and we disclosed to the public prior to the time when the final proposition was voted on, and the new balance is much more livable than the old. That is ultimately what it’s all about. Cars are still carrying the lion’s share of the trips, but other trips are being accommodated as well, in substantially larger numbers than before. For a relatively small reduction in system performance for rush-hour drivers, we now have a system that is performing much better for all modes 24/7, and the livability effects on the neighborhood are nothing short of miraculous. Of course, each case is different, not all urban interventions are directly replicable somewhere else, even in the same city, and whether the Sheridan Expressway can go or not should include detailed consideration of trip patterns, including regional trips, and how severely they, and the regional economy, would be affected by the change.

We have been witnessing the death throes of the Postal Service, big bookstores, big record store chains, to name but a few, and we are seeing big changes in banking, learning, health care and other institutions in our society. This is part of a Darwinian game precipitated largely by the pace of technological change and globalization. By most indicators, that pace is likely to accelerate. In contrast, the institutional and policy frameworks within which we work in order to develop and adapt our cities and infrastructure have not kept pace, and they are in fact, in many ways, stuck in the past.

Owing to federal tax and other laws, for most people, their home is their biggest asset. Together with location, accessibility and parking supply are crucial determinants of property values. Most attempts to change the configuration of streets, particularly where this involves the conversion of parking or mixed traffic lanes to transit or bike-only, are seen as a threat to property values. Densification is also still seen as a threat to property values in many places, including many San Francisco neighborhoods, precisely because of its perceived consequences on parking demand.

Our laws and institutions are set up to protect property rights and give people a good chance to fight any form of city-shaping government program. The system is set up to virtually ensure slow change. In some cases, in a truly perverse way, environmental laws intended to improve things have been used to prevent change from happening altogether; witness the three-year long injunction on San Francisco’s Bike Plan on a claim of inadequate environmental review.

The New York Times tries to make sense out of all this by boiling it down to a fight between various users of the transportation system. But it's not that easy. In reality, these conflicts are manifestations of the fundamental changes in our society, in the way people live and work and use the streets and the city. We, as a profession, as a society, need to make a deliberate and coordinated effort to look at the infrastructure we have (and not just transportation infrastructure) from the perspective of the American society and the American city of the 21st century, decide what we need to keep, what we need to change and then set about to maintain, rebuild and recapitalize what we must keep and reshape the rest as quickly as we can. We must do this as a matter of survival in an increasingly competitive world.

The social and economic change that technology is bringing about is fundamental. Yesterday, I was told by the doctor that my father's EKG will be read in India, and the report sent back via e-mail to the cardiologist here. Does that mean that soon there will be no need for medical technicians and transcriptionists to be based in the US? Maybe. More likely, there will be another wave of economic accommodation, where entire classes of people will seek to find ways to lower their overhead costs to remain competitive, in many cases attempting to compete with people in other countries where labor, environmental and other laws affecting costs and wages aren't quite what they are here.

In an effort to cut expenses, many of those people will try to relocate, and their locational decisions will be shaped significantly by property values and tax policy, and by the availability of affordable housing programs which, by definition, require government intervention. Their mobility choices will be significantly affected by locational decisions. People relocating to exurban locations will not have access to good public transportation and will live in environments where biking and walking are not easy. Their travel patterns will be largely a consequence, not a determinant, of where they locate. Left to their own devices and the influence of economic conditions and the real estate market, very few people will be able to make a conscious choice to locate somewhere just so they can bike to work or to school.

In the next four decades, the population of the US will grow by 100 million people (a number equivalent to the current combined population of the states of California, Texas, New York and Florida.) Chances are, most of that growth will occur in a manner similar to what we've seen since the 1950's. Single family homes, farther and farther away from the urban core, where land is still cheap and where highway access is either free or we can at least pretend that the state or federal gas tax revenues will somehow be available to pay for it. Some enlightened local jurisdictions, concerned about carbon footprint and infrastructure efficiency, will double or triple the density requirements, and they still won't be anywhere close to what would be needed in order to serve the new developments sustainably with fixed route transit. For most people in this situation, getting a hybrid car will be their best contribution to reducing their carbon footprint. If we could give them a different set of locational choices, through affordable housing programs, through densification of already built areas, and through investment in infrastructure to responsibly accompany that growth, we could radically change our metropolitan areas for the better.

As we consider the American city of the 21st century, we have an opportunity to create a vision that will produce a more integrated, more walkable and accessible city, a place where people will find more chances to interact in person and exchange ideas and be enriched by human contact, a place where quality of life will be higher and transportation infrastructure will actually balance the mobility needs of today and tomorrow, instead of trying to perpetuate the modally lopsided priorities of yesterday. This can absolutely be accomplished, and there are attempts on a small scale in many urban areas already, but to do it on a larger scale will cost a lot of money, require some local acceptance of density and necessitate some big changes in the way we deliver infrastructure and services.

The first step in that direction is to commit to investing at a level commensurate with the actual needs of a society that will be growing by 30% and must rebuild a hundred years’ worth of decaying infrastructure. We’ll have to bite the bullet and generate new transportation revenues. The private sector will be eager to invest large sums too, but only after the public sector makes a very substantial long-term commitment. The second step would be to use transportation infrastructure dollars, on a scale much larger than what we’ve seen up to now, to incentivize the right behavior at the local level, including the acceptance of at least moderate density. The third step would be to look critically at the infrastructure and service delivery methods that we now have in place and determine to change them, so we can deliver a better, more cost-effective and customer-oriented product much faster and begin to regain the confidence of an increasingly skeptical public.

The clearer the vision and the better our understanding of this as a national urban policy priority, the faster we’ll develop a consensus and the more compelling the case will be for authorizing new revenue, so we can build a sustainable future for our cities, a future where people are not pitted against each other just because they want to be safe, environmentally responsible, and enjoy a decent level of accessibility.

Is it still possible to promote new bicycling and walking options in harmony with vehicular traffic? Or as city space gets more limited, will planners have to take sides? So what's at stake here? Will cars and trucks be targeted in future urban transportation planning? Should they be? Who wins or loses if auto space (lanes or even whole roads) is turned over to bicyclists or pedestrians? What cities are striking a good balance today, and what can they teach us about the future?

History has shown us that one mode of transportation can meet the ever changing needs of residents, employers and visitors alike. Focusing on one-size-fits-all solutions for mobility is a lose-lose for everyone including our environment and our economy. The recent surge in bicycle usage, transit and walking in our nation is requiring all of us responsible for the planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance of our public rights of way and the mobility services that use them to take a hard look at how we use these limited spaces. In order to meet the mobility needs of our growing and changing population while still supporting economic and community development we need to re-assess what tools we have at our disposal to meet them. One thing is very clear for us here at the SFMTA, when you focus just on cars there is simply not going to be enough room on our streets. However, when you approach the issue of mobility through the lens of an integrated mobility management perspective, there is plenty of room. In fact there is so much room you can now take back the streets for people on sidewalks, on transit and on bicycles.

This integrated approach requires the following strategies to work in order to be successful: transit oriented land-uses, customer-oriented and reliable transit services, complete street designs (walking, transit and bicycling prioritized streets), parking demand management and travel demand management. The SFTMA is approaching our mobility needs with all these tools. We have worked very closely with our land-use partners to support the compact mixed-use zoning, we support reduced parking requirements as they in turn support the demand for transit services, walking and bicycling. On our part, we developed a very successful transit service re-design known as the Transit Effectiveness Project and embarked on one of the most ambitious bicycle transportation plans in the nation. Our parking demand management program known as SFPark, includes the installation of sensors at the parking meter spaces to determine the lowest price for the maximum parking availability, with variable pricing based on demand; the first of its kind in the world. There are trade offs, moving from vehicle throughput to people throughput is a challenge for some, but a necessary evolution if we are to be truly successful in meeting our mobility needs. We need to make better use of technology and information when we explain these trade offs to the communities that are sometimes the least prepared to change. For example, when designing our bicycle plan, certain key corridors were also the key transit corridors and space was limited which could have been a mode-versus-mode issue. Having that planning coordination up-front allowed many new creative solutions to be tested which created a win-win for all users of the transportation system.

As we continue to grow, the role of personal mobility will be ever important, but the space needed to transport and connect people with their communities will look a little different. The DNA of our mobility options are being reassessed and re-designed. The automobile is being redesigned with integration of smart technology and electric propulsion. This will in turn move the needle for smaller more adaptable vehicles, and traditional bicycles are making way for two and four passenger pedal powered vehicles for families. Streets that were once the dominion of automobile traffic are now being transformed into people spaces, public plazas, transit lanes, protected bicycle paths and more sidewalk spaces. Social media is linking us closer and closer and CarSharing is becoming mainstream. We are starting to see all of these examples in San Francisco, Portland, Chicago, Seattle and New York City while it is the norm in Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Paris and London. Copenhagen has lead the way with a consistent reduction in parking spaces and road space for automobiles and a gradual increase in public spaces, transit and bicycle space in the street. This integrated approach has seen a dramatic shift from driving to bicycling and transit and according to a recent poll, the happiest people on the planet. Also, Spain’s new Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans strategy has prioritized hundreds of millions of Euros to the cities that develop integrated multi-modal transportation plans that focus on moving and connecting people. In just a few years, Madrid, Barcelona and Seville added bicycle sharing, new transit services, created public spaces, managed parking and added tens of kilometers of in-street bicycle paths. This strategic investment has moved the bicycle mode-split needle from zero to close to double digits. Spain’s bold new vision of high speed rail connecting cities and local sustainable mobility plans is a great example for our federal government as we approach the next re-authorization.

First, let’s be clear about one thing: there is enough room on our nation’s roads for everyone, particularly those who are taking up less space, reducing traffic congestion, causing less wear and tear to the roads, and putting less pollution in the air. In fact, drivers should be thankful to see more cyclists and pedestrians hitting the streets – the more people biking and walking to work, school, or the grocery means the fewer people holding up traffic or honking their horns to make it through a light.

When looking at city planning, we need to account for all modes of transportation: cars, buses, bikes, light rail, and even basic sneakers. While my district of Portland and its surrounding neighborhoods are often recognized for a strong cycling community, we are also recognized for our city’s comprehensive approach to urban planning. A good example is the Hawthorne Bridge, which is a main thoroughfare that runs right over the Willamette River. The oldest highway bridge in Portland, it is also the busiest bicycle and transit bridge in Oregon, serving over 4,800 cyclists and 750 TriMet buses on a daily basis.

The reason it can serve so many people is because planners invested $50,000 for bike and pedestrian improvements, rather than upwards of the $10 million that would have been necessary if they had simply accommodated the same user increase just for cars. As a result, between 1991 and 2010 vehicle usage of Hawthorne Bridge has increased by 20%, with bikes being responsible for 19% of that increase.

This success story reflects how we can and should use our roads, streets and bridges: make them available to all. “Complete streets,” as they are called, also create local jobs, improve quality of life, and lead to economic growth with stores and shops sprouting up along sidewalks.

With funding being a key constraint in our current transportation debate, investing in our bicycle and pedestrian networks is a way to get more value out of our dollars. The city of Portland’s existing 300 mile network of bikeways is valued at about $60 million – about the same cost of constructing one mile of modern urban freeway. This modest investment has led to the highest bicycle mode share of any major city in the US and a 190% increase in bike commuting between 1990 and 2005 according to the US Census.

And it’s not just Portland seeing these kinds of results. From New York City to Chicago, and even here in Washington, DC, bike commuting and bicycle mode share are increasing from basic adjustments and improvements in the road network. With fewer drivers on the roads, cyclists and walkers are doing a good thing for their heart rates and the flow of city traffic. So as we look to deal with growing populations in urban areas, we must take a comprehensive approach and accommodate everyone.

Individuals that choose to live in urban areas should have the option to ride a bicycle to work. However, as we have discussed on this blog, this should not come at the expense of a national transportation strategy that focuses on the need for repair, improvement, and expansion, where necessary, of the National Highway System. Few Americans realize that trucking moves nearly everything we consume or use. At least 80 percent of U.S. communities receive their goods exclusively by truck.

Without an effective highway system to deliver products, corner stores and local shops in “livable communities” would not have products on their shelves. As Sec. LaHood said, "Truck transportation... will continue to play an essential role in ensuring the economic health of the country and maintaining the United States' position as a leader in international trade.” We must focus on improving travel times through the nation’s worst traffic bottlenecks to maintain the delivery systems that our economy relies upon. Repair and expansion of the National Highway System, as suggested by the National Association of Manufacturers, National Industrial Transportation League and others, including blog contributors Mr. Horsley and Mr. Poole, will help alleviate traffic congestion and improve the efficiency of our supply chain.

According to the ATA U.S. Freight Transportation Forecast to 2021, compiled by IHS Global Insight and Martin Labbe Associates, total freight tonnage will increase 25 percent by 2021, with the modal share moved by truck increasing to nearly 71 percent. Future transportation planning must prioritize highway investments that target critical congestion points, repairing, improving and expanding the national highway system where necessary. Making this commitment will promote economic growth and ensure that individuals, no matter where they choose to live, can receive the products they rely on each day.

Such a divisive question reflects a sad fact: the automobile has dominated American streets for so long that the mere mention of pedestrian access can send city planners into a tizzy.

The needs of low-income neighborhoods (in terms of pedestrian access and much else) have been routinely ignored in city planning, which is the reason TEN has consistently advocated for greater public participation in the last three transportation bills.

For years, low-income neighborhoods have had their pedestrian walkways cut off by encroaching highway systems, causing pollution and preventing easy access to schools, jobs, places of worship, and parks. Children living near highways are 50% more likely to suffer from asthma, allergies, and skin rashes than those who do not.

The Safe Routes to Schools Program championed by Rep. Oberstar is an innovative solution to a significant problem: less than 13% of children in the US walk or bike to school—compared to 50% in 1969. Childhood obesity is a real crisis in this country. According to the CDC, over 18% of children aged 12-19 are obese—compared to 5% in 1980. The Safe Routes to School Program addresses three of these issues: keeping children safe while getting exercise, promoting community ties, and reducing pollution.

What we need in our system is choice and flexibility. When people have the option to take transit, they consistently choose to do so, as a recent study of commuter demand in North Carolina shows. Switching to public transportation not only saves money, but, according to another recent study, the extra walking actually helps people lose weight.

Six decades of auto-centric planning have left us segregated physically, economically, and spiritually. Complete streets are definitely part of the solution.

We shouldn’t be thinking of ways to limit modes of transportation, we should be working to improve them all.

Even though it’s hard to predict just how we will travel in the coming years, we do know that there has been an upswing in bike ridership, that walking continues to be the most viable option for some communities, that demand for good transit options is on the rise and that our roadways are still choked with congestion. Those facts alone make a good case for immediately improving facilities for drivers, transit users, bike riders and pedestrians.

However, any upgrades we make should be a way to reduce congestion – not contribute to it. Biking and walking will not suddenly overtake driving or transit use. Not only that, they do nothing to improve the funding problem. Drivers and transit riders pay to use those systems, either through the gas tax or through a fare, but bike riders and pedestrians don’t have similar fees. Where will the dollars come from? A vehicle miles traveled fee? A bike tire tax? A sneaker tax? Improving our transportation network will require a coordinated national effort, and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Of course, as we develop facilities to accommodate the varying needs of the traveling public (including businesses), safety has to be the number one concern. In 2008, more than 4,300 pedestrians were killed in accidents involving motor vehicles, and bike and motor vehicle crashes involved more than 700 fatalities. Thousands more were injured. Updated design standards and dedicated lanes are just some of the ways we can help protect people.

For some, biking or walking can be a successful alternative. For some, mass transit is the answer. And, for some—including many businesses—traveling by car or truck is a necessity.

People are ready to think differently about transportation, so it’s time for us to revolutionize how we move people and goods, and how we pay for it.

Long before the term “livability” became popular, state departments of transportation were already hard at work, improving the quality of life in neighborhoods, counties, cities, and states by connecting people to affordable housing, good jobs, strong schools, and recreational facilities.

Over the last two decades, $5.2 billion have been channeled through state departments of transportation into thousands of biking and walking improvements across the county. In 2007, states spent $13.3 billion on transit, compared to federal funding of $10.7 billion. Yet to ignore transportation solutions that only address bicycles and walking and do not include highway expansion and improvements is simply wrong-headed.

Earlier this year AASHTO published two reports that put this discussion into some perspective: The Road to Livability describes how a full range of transportation options – including improvements to roadways, transit, walking, and biking – can enhance livability in our communities. It also illustrates how state DOTs are using every opportunity to tailor transportation projects to the needs of the communities they pass through. The second report, Unlocking Gridlock, underscores the need for a balanced approach to meet metropolitan mobility needs, one that includes biking and walking trails but also looks at the larger needs to move freight, connect communities, and improve passenger rail and transit options.

For even in cities - New York included -- highways play a dominant role in moving people and goods, carrying the overwhelming majority trips nationwide and 93 percent of freight by value. Because capacity has not kept pace with travel demand over the past four decades, traffic experiencing congested conditions during peak hours increased from 32 to 67 percent in most urban areas, even where transit is used extensively.

This week’s blog question infers that there should be a competition between funding for roads and bridges and bikes and pedestrian enhancements. We beg to differ. State DOTs have shown that a balanced approach works. It is for this reason that AASHTO supports a new multiyear authorization bill that takes into account the important role played by road-related investments as well as calling for increased funding for transit, biking, walking, and rail -- all of which will enhance communities and improve the convenience of travel and access to services for all citizens, regardless of whether they live in urban or rural areas. For more information, go to http://expandingcapacity.transportation.org.

I agree with my friend Andy that the title of this thread poses the wrong question. In the coming decades we will undoubtedly see a growing movement at the local level to remove many of the urban highways that were built in the 1950s and ‘60s.

But the primary driver of this trend won’t be a competition between modes of transportation. Despite the media’s attempts to create conflict, it won’t be a death match pitting motorists and truckers versus pedestrians and cyclists. Rather, it will reflect an evolving redefinition of what is necessary to create economically vibrant cities in the 21st century.

When originally designed and built a half-century ago, the proponents of these urban highways claimed that they were vital to commerce. If such highways are now removed, it will reflect a new consensus that such structures actually threaten economic vitality by significantly degrading quality of life, thereby making such locations undesirable places to live and work.

If there is a successful battle to “take urban spaces back from the automobile,” improved conditions for pedestrians and cyclists will no doubt result in such places. But the results will also include non-transportation benefits, such as replacing concrete with green space, improving air quality and transforming urban dead zones into vibrant neighborhoods of residences and small businesses. And all of these positive results will only occur if local people conclude that the highest and best use for such urban space requires dismantling urban highways built a half-century ago.

To conclude, this isn’t a fight between modes, it’s a disagreement over conflicting visions for the future. One vision, rooted in the 1950s, places highest value on maximizing the throughput of vehicles with methods that create ever greater congestion. The other vision, focused on the future, places highest value on creating vibrant, livable communities for people. That, in a nutshell, is what this is all about.

I would say that this is in a way a clever question to open the discussions – contentiously put, etc. – but it does a disservice to the basics in that it implicitly puts the two most important groups – everybody is at one point a pedestrian, and every person on a non-carbon mode is part of the solution – as if they were the aggressors.

The fact that this will be eaten up with a smile by what are, sorry to say, the bad guys, i.e., all those who have been making sure that our cities are for cars and not for people. Let me ask the group that rather than to take the bait, we recast the question in more useful terms.

Eric Britton

PS. Looking for new ideas about low-carbon, high-impact, available-now mobility options. Try www.ShareTransport.org and www.worldtransportjournal.org for your food for thought. We gotta change our diet in America.

ecoplan.org/library/k2010-summary.pdf

It’s time to re-imagine our cities with less traffic, fewer high-speed roads, and more of our streets reserved for walking, cycling, public transport, and room for the unfolding of “life between buildings” in well designed public space. For decades, cars have been squeezing out pedestrians and cyclists, as transport planners and engineers argued that the solution to congestion and urban efficiency was to build more and wider highways. As traffic grew, it seemed logical that giving more space to cars would improve traffic flow. But the reality has been that adding more high-speed motorways and parking spaces has fueled traffic growth and harmed urban livability, spurred sprawl and drastically boosted CO2 emissions and dependence on fossil fuel.

Global research reveals a counter-intuitive truth, recently described as the “fundamental law of road congestion: adding road capacity will not alleviate congestion on any sort of major urban road or rural highway within metropolitan boundaries.” As Lewis Mumford put it decades ago: “Increasing road capacity to accommodate increased driving is like buying bigger pants to cure obesity.” Transportation experts from the World Bank, Federal Highway Administration and the Asian Development Bank now all urge that induced travel be considered in transportation planning and system management.

In the simplest of terms, this means that if you build bigger or faster roads, you get more traffic. If you provide more bike paths, sidewalks, and public transport, you get more use of these. With a limited supply of both money and urban space, we need to make choices: what kind of cities do we want?

For decades, cities like Copenhagen, Vienna, Zurich, and Munich have shown that reducing street space for cars leads to less traffic and a higher quality of life, with more walking, cycling, and public transport, and far lower energy use and CO2. Since 2003, Paris has reduced traffic by 13% in part by eliminating 14,500 on-street parking spaces (a tenth of the total) and imposing user fees on the remaining car parking city-wide. Many of the former parking spaces have been turned into bike parking, public bicycle stations, and bike paths. Other cities from Stockholm to Singapore have used road pricing to manage traffic, though expansion of motorways has countered some of pricing’s effects.

In cities from Seoul to San Francisco and Milwaukee, tearing down elevated highways has improved traffic flow, reduced accidents and pollution, and revitalized once blighted neighborhoods. Though such proposals may seem bold and sometimes heavily criticized, once they are implemented it is clear that the result is greater equity for citizens, better use of public space, and improved and safer traffic flow for all modes.

Through September 15th, at the Center for Architecture in New York, an exhibition called, “Our Cities Ourselves” shows that inspiring visions for repurposing highways are common in cities across the world. Imagine tearing down FDR Drive by the Brooklyn Bridge or the Sheridan Freeway, a freeway in NYC/Bronx that is proposed for teardown by environmental justice groups like the Southern Bronx Watershed Alliance. Imagine putting some roads underground to reclaim access to waterfronts, as Boston did and as Budapest might do. Imagine cities in China, India, Latin America, and Africa modernizing with well-operated bus rapid transit, walking, and cycling networks, with smart traffic management, rather than developing dysfunctional congested, elevated ring roads linking superblocks where everyone is forced to drive or walk long distances to buses stuck in traffic.

The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy has published ten principles for transportation in urban life as a guide to this emerging global paradigm shift. The answer is not to eliminate cars from cities, but to strike a better balance.

Why should we have to travel to Copenhagen or Paris to find the kind of lively animated “life between buildings,” as Danish designer Jan Gehl describes it, that makes us happy to be in cities? Cities from New York to Portland, Oregon are bringing home global best practice and giving priority in both spending and street space to pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport. We might just be finding a new love affair with our cities ourselves.

This is SO the wrong question. Zero-sum games are rarely constructive and rarely ask the right questions. The issue for urban transportation planners isn’t, or shouldn’t be, “which mode is going to win”. The questions should be more along the lines of what is the balance we need achieve among the different modes; what are people trying to do in urban areas that transportation facilitates or enables? Transportation – even riding a bike – is rarely an end in itself; in fact it almost always imposes costs that individuals and the community end up paying for somehow: in time, or pollution, or energy consumption, etc.

We should be asking how we minimize the need to travel in urban areas; and how we minimize the impact and cost of urban travel – in part so that essential traffic, like deliveries and emergency services and Presidential motorcades (kidding…), doesn’t get stuck in traffic made up largely of single-occupant vehicles driving a mile or two down the street at not much more than walking pace. Just look at the madness we create for ourselves with the school trip: 20%-30% of morning rush-hour traffic in many metro areas consists of perfectly able-bodied kids being ferried to school by parents with better things to do with their time who won’t let their kids walk or ride their bikes to school because there are so many harried parents rushing their kids to school and the roads and sidewalks around the school aren’t safe. And frankly, many of the kids could use the exercise.

And lest we forget, the numbers show that fully half of all trips in metropolitan areas are three miles or less; 40% are two miles or less and more than one quarter are just one mile or less. These are the trips we ought to looking at to see if there are more sustainable and efficient ways that people can travel than by car – which is how the vast majority of those trips are currently made, and it really isn’t working that well. That should make sense whether you are a cyclist, pedestrian, transit user, or car driver.

Similarly, the numbers show that we are going to be adding 100 million people to the US population in the next two to three decades, mostly in urban areas. With the best will in the world, that simply isn’t going to work if all those people have two cars and expect to be able to drive an open road 20 miles each way every day to their job or to buy groceries. We have to diversify our transportation system and rely less on SOVs. That means more and better transit, and safer, more convenient and attractive bicycling and walking. That isn’t rocket science and it isn’t an assault on cars either.

The best cities in the world, and the best streets in the world have managed to find a good balance. Copenhagen has a 37% bike mode share, which is amazing and which somehow civilizes the city and rush hour. But the second biggest share of traffic is cars. You can drive almost everywhere you want to in Copenhagen, but it doesn’t always make sense and there are real choices. Places like Portland and Boulder in the USA provide decent (not great, yet) examples of the same phenomenon. And the contrast between New York City avenues that have been balanced and those that haven’t are really quite instructive. Eighth and Ninth Avenues have been rebuilt recently with much better pedestrian and bicycle provision, much better transit, delivery and parking management, and the streets really work as multi-modal corridors. Safety for ALL users has improved. By contrast, 6th and 7th Avenues are still wide open race tracks with illegal and double parking, pointless 4 foot wide bike lanes, terrifying pedestrian crossings that are five or six lanes wide…and frustrated drivers.

Hopefully others can weigh in on the need to create places for people, the need for actual bona fide land use planning to which people adhere, the incredible co-benefits of reducing car travel and getting people onto transit, foot and bike, the cost-effectiveness of a more balanced approach etc. And hopefully the urge to pick one mode over another or to take sides can be resisted. After all, we have it on good authority that the era of favoring motorized over non-motorized transportation is over. We are all in this together.

As for me, I’m escaping to Deep Creek Lake for the week and a few bike rides that actually will be ends in themselves.