>[A summary of the costs of automobile traffic.]
Well, yes. However, what do the alternatives cost? It's easy to complain
about the costs of a particular technology, but--do we have good
alternatives?
This opens out into a question I've been looking at for years--how do we
take existing car-oriented suburbs and make them pedestrian-oriented?
Would it be socially realistic? Cost-effective? Is it even possible?
It's also, I believe, one of David Sucher's big issues--I think this list
would do better to discuss it with him, rather than criticize him for being
unwilling to deal with theoretical issues.
>In Boston the Financial District is so badly choked by traffic that there have
>been proposals to route all traffic away and close the F.D. streets to auto
>traffic. Maybe build satellite parking way out to encourage workers not to
>drive into the metro region at all, but park and take public transit. That
>would, among other things, improve business in that area.
>
>I know Washington, D.C.'s traffic problems were to have been solved by the
>Beltway (optimism circa 195?). It was gridlocked from almost the day of
>completion. The only problem solved by the Beltway is how to easily label
>Washington "insiders." What impact would a similar auto-ban (please excuse the
>pun) have on troubled D.C. businesses, employment and social problems? Any
>chance the increased foot traffic would operate to suppress or obviate some of
>the street crime? What do you folks think?
>
The foot traffic in such areas is already heavy; street crime is not a big
problem there during business hours. Such bans are likely to run into
stiff political opposition from the wealthy and powerful. Really--can you
imagine our senators giving up their cars?
R.
Well, yes. However, what do the alternatives cost? It's easy to complain
about the costs of a particular technology, but--do we have good
alternatives?
This opens out into a question I've been looking at for years--how do we
take existing car-oriented suburbs and make them pedestrian-oriented?
Would it be socially realistic? Cost-effective? Is it even possible?
It's also, I believe, one of David Sucher's big issues--I think this list
would do better to discuss it with him, rather than criticize him for being
unwilling to deal with theoretical issues.
>In Boston the Financial District is so badly choked by traffic that there have
>been proposals to route all traffic away and close the F.D. streets to auto
>traffic. Maybe build satellite parking way out to encourage workers not to
>drive into the metro region at all, but park and take public transit. That
>would, among other things, improve business in that area.
>
>I know Washington, D.C.'s traffic problems were to have been solved by the
>Beltway (optimism circa 195?). It was gridlocked from almost the day of
>completion. The only problem solved by the Beltway is how to easily label
>Washington "insiders." What impact would a similar auto-ban (please excuse the
>pun) have on troubled D.C. businesses, employment and social problems? Any
>chance the increased foot traffic would operate to suppress or obviate some of
>the street crime? What do you folks think?
>
The foot traffic in such areas is already heavy; street crime is not a big
problem there during business hours. Such bans are likely to run into
stiff political opposition from the wealthy and powerful. Really--can you
imagine our senators giving up their cars?
R.