New Urbanism projects under attack by auto interests

from the Infrastructurist:



Opponents of balanced transportation wasted no time denouncing some recipients of the TIGER II infrastructure grants, announced last week. Noting that less than a third of the $600 million in federal funding went to “road projects,” Marc Scribner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute lamented in the Washington Examiner that much of the money was assigned, instead, to what he calls “livability” projects. The implication is that any infrastructure project that fails to build more roads is latently unpatriotic, because “most Americans prefer to drive”:



One object of Scribner’s ire is the $16 million grant won by New Haven to convert its Route 34 interstate connector into a pedestrian- and bike-friendly “urban boulevard.” Book after book has been written about the problematic Route 34, but briefly put, New Haven built the highway at the height of urban renewal in response to cries for more roads. To do so the city destroyed the Oak Street neighborhood, permanently altering the community’s social fabric while simultaneously failing to improve traffic flows. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/10/25/tiger-ii-proposals-already-under-attack-by-auto-interests/

What Americans may or may not "prefer" will be irrelevant.

Riding a bike is fun.

It's the toy most of us wanted when we were growing up.

It stops being fun if we feel that our lives are in danger doing it.

TIGER II just tries to change that.

What's the problem?

detail about how GM undid the electric tram infrastructure in the USA and Canada in the 1920s to 1950s so more cars would be needed and sold.

If you want people to use mass transit the mass transit has to be convenient and you have to make driving a PITA. That is why so many residents of NYC don't have a car.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Really.

turn in driving everywhere for efficient, practical trains and other mass transit systems along with actual cities designed so I didn't have to drive everywhere.

Add in the fact that simply building roads everywhere isn't a sustainable 'plan' to future growth of cities/population, we can't pave the whole planet.

pursue the enactment of "new urbanist" or "smart growth" policies at the local level, because that's where change will (1) begin, and (2) most directly impact the quality of life. If you agree that corporate control over our lives and our communities' development is at the root of Anerica's automobile dependence, the place to begin standing up to Big Retail and Big Development is right where you live.

A great primer, available both in book and DVD, is "Save Our Land, Save Our Towns" by Tom Hylton, a Pulitzer Prize-winning small-town reporter. I've been facilitating screenings of his film in my local area for the past six months and the response has been terrific. Would-be (were it safe) walkers and bikers are taking up the cause, and it's beginning to look like our now-sprawling town of 80,000 might wise up and start building/revitalizing traditional neighborhoods.

It's no coincidence that this country's greatest period of progressive change occurred when neighborhoods thrived and people made face-to-face connections. New Urbanism is one tool for rekindling the sense of community and "we're all in this together"-ness so lacking in our local - and national - discourse.

When I live din San Diego I used it all the time and never felt a need for a car. I could get to where ever I needed to go.

Now I live in Saint Louis where the metro link still has gaps and bus lines are being shut down. If you need to go from city to country you just can't do it reliably on public transportation.

So I wish this guy would not presume to tell me what I prefer.