A weekly column by Roger A. Baylor.
To make up for Thursday's rerun ...
---
I haven't missed the irony.
The very act of persistently advocating for the restoration of two-way streets and the reform of our car-centric downtown grid completely undermines my fundamental personal objective, which is to be freed at long last from mandatory participation in one-way discussions that invariably begin with this anguished cry, openly stated or implicit:
WHAT ABOUT ME AND MY CAR!
To which I must reply:
What about them? What about me and my Not Car?
Or, better stated:
Why are your needs and your CARS more important than our needs and our Not Cars?
Yes, I have a car, too. However, since around 1992 it has been my aim to organize my life so as to facilitate other transportation options – walking, biking, Uber-ing, light rail -- whatever. I'd rather take the money and buy a plane ticket to a European city where I can ride the tram.
I haven't eliminated the need for a car, mind you, but have been shrinking it down, so as to be fit comfortably within the perimeter of a typical oil filter. I've purchased homes twice, one for each marriage, with this in mind. If I return to business, it will be downtown, where I can walk to and from work.
And so on. As Jeff Gillenwater put it on social media:
People are attempting to calculate their personal losses based on the perceived additional commute time created by a two way street grid, often using astronomical hourly rates for the at best fuzzy math. Even the most ardent opponents are typically coming up with a few minutes per trip. Suggest to those same people, though, that they might consider living closer to work in order to realize perhaps even double the financial savings and half the daily resource usage - making the point that their own decision making plays a large role, both for themselves and all the rest of us who put up with the negative consequences of their automobile dominated lifestyles - and the general response is anger and/or blank stares. As my favorite planning statement goes: You're not stuck in traffic. You are traffic.
Automotive propaganda has been so pervasive for so long that few of us even think twice before buying into it. It's like religion, in a way; modern life deprives us of any genuine input or purpose, but cars remain emblematic of a freedom otherwise denied us, and we worship them accordingly.
I think it goes further, addressing something along the lines of impotence versus power, an increasingly obvious societal dynamic in an era when we should be tarring and feathering the accumulators of wealth and capital rather than attacking each other.
The same Americans cursing Muslim militants for ramming cars into pedestrians probably have approached a bicyclist and considered precisely the same course of action. Most of the time they don't follow through, but it's hard to see much difference in these cognitive pre-conditions of terrorism.
There is much power within two tons of metal, plastic and rubber, as utterly dependent on the skill and equanimity of the human behind the wheel. Drop 26,721 bombs on other countries, and it passes without notice because it's all part of the plan, but draw an extra white line on the road in someone's path to a job he or she hates, anyway, and everyone loses their minds.
Gillenwater again:
People who genuinely believe that traversing Spring and other nearby streets in New Albany constitutes some sort of all-too-confusing struggle clearly lack the competence to be behind the wheel at all. They're one of the primary reasons street reforms were so badly needed in the first place. To the extent they're correct about being unable to keep from crashing into each other in the near future, I'm just going to chalk it up to Darwinism. I don't want them or anyone else to get seriously injured but disabling a slew of their vehicles would be a boon to us all.
I’ve noticed that as we debate two-way streets in New Albany, or more accurately, as proponents offer ream after ream of statistical evidence even as opponents respond by screaming and threatening to maul someone, those of the one-way persuasion tend to say "I" and "me" a lot, while those interested in more than one path through life use words like "we," "us" and “ours.”
Invariably it's about “my right” to drive anywhere, any time, at any speed, and never our collective responsibility to drive safely. When safety is mentioned, it’s all about safety for “me and my car,” not anyone else who might wish to use a sliver of a driver's city acreage at the same time, as though it's a zero sum proposition.
When you think about it, angry drivers are the ultimate in snowflakes, demanding that they have it all and have it now, and crumbling into infantile tantrums at the first sign they might no longer be coddled.
It’s understandable. Our society has been rigged like this since the 1920s, which only makes our crusade to restore a semblance of balance even more rewarding – and necessary, especially if “our” neighborhoods are to be reclaimed.
A last guest turn for Jeff …
It's amazing really. People who live in my neighborhood never seem to experience the horrendous driving conditions that so many who only pass through insist happen on a regular basis …
… there are typically so few problems with automobile congestion in Downtown New Albany, any seems like a lot. Those frustrated drivers, though, like to take it out on everybody else once they hit the ramps, driving 70-75 mph and weaving in and out of lanes because everybody knows that it's well worth risking multiple lives to keep them from being five minutes late to wherever they're going. I mean, they might not have time for a second cup of coffee at their destination before they have to get started with their work. If everybody driving a car was 1/3 as important as a lot of them seem to think they are, I could roll down my windows and chat with Nobel Prize winners every morning.
Just take a deep breath. If something confuses and distracts you -- if you don't know what it means, and find it challenging -- one possible response is to learn.
Unconventional, perhaps, but at least some humans have been doing it for thousands of years ... even before cars were invented.
---
I was asked this question on a thread about the many restaurants and bars in downtown New Albany.
"Finally, if these two-way streets are indeed better for business, then how has there been so much growth downtown in spite of one-way traffic?"
As a frequent customer of Holiday Inn Express (no, not really), here's my answer, albeit without statistics or outside sources, just personal observations.
---
During the history of the two-way streets discussion in New Albany, we've tended to proceed along artificially parallel lines: two-way streets are good for neighborhoods and also good for downtown business districts, but for reasons that aren't always seen to overlap even if they share a basic set of fundamental aims.
The goal of enhanced walkability encompasses all, except I don't think we've always been able to see how neighborhoods and business districts can be the same thing. We've forgotten what this normal circumstance looks like, and we're locked into a mindset of commuting, as opposed to living.
Let's begin by rewinding.
Given the state of degradation in downtown ten years ago, it's obvious that thirty or more years of one-way streets did nothing to boost the overall value of downtown.
At their very best, one-way streets were neutral, serving their stated purpose of moving drivers through town as quickly as possible, almost none of whom were intent on stopping.
At worst, one-way streets were an impetus from the start for the hollowing-out problem, insulating speedy avenues for cars and implying that no one should or would stop because nothing of value was there to merit the effort – a self-fulfilling prophecy, for sure.
In short, the “value” of downtown in the sense of the historic central business district had collapsed to such an extent that it had become a huge undervalued asset – like a deep sink hole, if you will – in the middle of the larger municipal organism, with corresponding stressors extending like tentacles into nearby neighborhoods.
That's bad, but under the right circumstances, a depressed downtown might be worth greater investment precisely because it was so radically undervalued, and rates of return would be higher.
The combination of the YMCA and the inexpensive Riverfront Development Area permits (circa 2006) served as a jump start, bringing investors/pioneers into the undervalued zone, and in turn attracting contractors and developers to rehab real estate, gradually producing a ripple effect of sorts with almost no financial contribution from city government.
So far, so good, but these early waves of activity really were doing nothing other than beginning the neglected process of redressing an undervalued situation, and came nowhere near maximizing a critical mass that didn't yet exist. We were repaying delinquent interest and penalties, not touching the principal -- just filling in the hole, not rebuilding atop desired level ground.
Now, after ten or so years, perhaps the undervalued hole has been filled or at least is close to being filled, and as we approach the stage of consolidation and value creation above the mere restoration of the break-even point, I believe this is the point where one-way streets actually would inhibit further growth if not eliminated.
Consider that when the city finally started putting some skin in the game, the Breakwater apartment complex was the planners' result: 180+ apartments, maybe 300 residents returning to downtown for residential occupancy, along with dozens of other examples nearby of small-scale rehabs, upstairs in urban dwellings, the way it used to be before one-way streets helped enable flight to the suburbs.
Most of us who've been here for a while have long noted that the turning point would be when people once again were living in the historic business district, as they had during previous periods of the city’s existence, thus confirming that cities are best at efficiently concentrating resources, with people living near their amenities and recreation, because these are the sort of people who value the urban experience in the first place and don't wish to reside in the 'burbs.
Seeing as one-way streets more closely resemble interstates than city streets, they obviously can do little to contribute to this emerging urban neighborhood vibe, and so now we return to our neighbor Jessica’s argument that two-way streets are better for the neighborhood, because that’s exactly what downtown must become to complete filling in the hole and building atop the level ground.
If it doesn’t become a neighborhood, with the next round of ancillaries, these 37 food-based businesses within an approximate 5-block radius of the parking garage won’t be sustainable, whatever the street direction.
Two-way streets can facilitate this process, as opposed to one-way streets detracting from it. Two way adds neighborhood value, one way saps it. Ultimately, it’s less about appeasing locals who already know how to get places (they’ll adapt quickly to changes) or non-locals using GPS as wayfinding, because neither of these factors matter unless people WANT TO GO THERE, and by extension, WANT TO LIVE THERE.
If they can get somewhere else (work, play) by two-way streets as easily as one-way (they can), and if the design of one-way streets actively contradict neighborhood values (they do), and if two-way streets slow traffic and reinforce quality of life considerations (affirmative) ...
... then there is a strong case for what we’ve been saying for years: pass-throughs can take I-265, which was built to take cars and trucks around downtown, and walking and biking can be re-emphasized downtown to enhance it as a neighborhood, because if people really want to be there, they’ll come (and live) in spite of the imagined impediments on the part of those naysayers, many of whom don’t understand the urban attraction from the outset and continue to view downtown as an obstacle to be surmounted, not a positive value in its own right.
My answer, then, is that during the period of downtown hole-filling, which in economic terms probably must be viewed as a time when investments still are speculative, these entrepreneurial indie business speculators have survived by utilizing available conditions as skillfully as possible as part of a bigger wager; they’ll trade sparser pickings now (up to a point) for better ones in the future.
I know for a fact that many restaurant people feel this way. It’s a risk, and they know it.
Through this period, one-way streets have been tolerable, perhaps, but they can do nothing to help facilitate what must come next. They run counter to the urban ethos that must be honored if the next stage of revitalization is to be reached, because if the next stage isn’t reached, the probable result will be a step backward ... into the hole.
What do you think?
---
Recent columns:
August 24: ON THE AVENUES: PourGate (the Great Beer Pour War of 2013) and Dr. Tom's prescription: "Kneel and Kiss My Ring, You Degraded Alcoholic."
August 17: ON THE AVENUES: Love in the time of choleric Coffey, though it's nice of Deaf Gahan to support the K of C's political agenda.
August 10: ON THE AVENUES: Super Tuesday shrapnel – or, tiptoeing through the tulips with Dan Coffey, now THE face of historic preservation in New Albany.
August 3: ON THE AVENUES: On the importance of being ancient.
July 27: ON THE AVENUES: Irish history with a musical chaser.
No comments:
Post a Comment