Early in the
history of this blog, I wrote about three key steps on
my path to becoming an urbanist. One of
those was being exposed to pioneering baseball statistical analyst Bill James
when still at an impressionable age. (I
was probably in my mid-20s.)
Baseball
number-crunching may seem a long way from urbanism. And it truly is. But there’s a connection in the way of
thinking, particularly in the upsetting of entrenched paradigms, at which James
excelled. As I wrote about James over
three years ago, “his work provided the life lesson that conventional wisdom
can be wrong and that we should be open to those who offer new ways of viewing
reality.” For me, that was a key step on
the path to becoming an urbanist.
James
continues to put forth baseball work, although it seems less ground-breaking
than it did forty years, with many good young writers tackling the subjects into
which James opened the doors. Sometimes
revolutionaries are overtaken by the forces they set loose.
But James
still has moments of eye-opening insight.
To me, the best of those moments come when he digresses from baseball
and applies his incisive and paradigm-rejecting mind to other areas of
life. I’m currently reading a book by James
in which my favorite section is his rumination on the fallacy of assigning
infinite value to any element of a decision.
The immediate
target of James’ attention is the air safety program in the aftermath of
9/11. He argues that, by assigning an
infinite value to preventing terrorist attacks on commercial airliners, we
effectively waste many more lifetimes, in ten, twenty, and thirty minute
chunks, than we save by preventing the occasional attack.
James notes that
there are many areas of life in which assigning infinite value to any single
element can lead to flawed decision-making.
He particularly cites the criminal justice system.
The point struck
home with me. My favorite personal
example is a utility that proclaims “Customer safety is our only concern.” My immediate mental response is always
“Nonsense. You also need to put a value on
energy delivery to customers, on turning a reasonable profit for stockholders, on
providing a secure living for employees, and on many other factors. Customer safety belongs on the list, but it
can’t be the only factor. And you trying
to tell me that it is only undermines everything else that you say.”
Having taken
a scenic route through baseball and federal flight safety rules, I’ll now pull
these thoughts back into land use and urbanism.
In my last post, I wrote about a congested intersection
in Petaluma. The corner of E. Washington
Street and S. McDowell Boulevard is a frequent subject of attention, with City
staff continually working to make the intersection function better and the
public questioning why good solutions can’t be found.
Adding my
unhelpful voice to the discussion, I noted in my last post that any new
intersection capacity that might be created would be soon be absorbed by
induced demand, returning congestion to current levels and leaving the public still
dissatisfied and irritated.
Given such a
troublesome intersection, the reasonable expectation is the City would try to
manage growth such that new sources of traffic, especially traffic that has
little option to defer trips to another time, are minimized. To give an example, a new sports complex, to
which parents must deliver children for fixed gametimes, would be an
unfortunate land-use choice near the intersection.
So, of
course, a complex of three soccer fields, to which more than half of
participants will pass through the problem intersection, is due to open in the
next few weeks. Furthermore, the three
soccer fields are only the start, with three baseball diamonds to follow as
funding allows.
Outside
observers may splutter over this state of affairs, wondering what nincompoops
would have located a sports complex in that location. And I might be tempted to join them, except
for one problem. I’m one of the
nincompoops.
About the
time the construction decisions were being finalized, I was appointed to the
Petaluma Park and Rec Commission. (It’s
actually the Recreation, Music, and Park Commission, but not a single music
issue has come before us during my tenure as a Commissioner, so I’ll defer to
Amy Poehler and go with Park and Rec Commission for today.)
In my time
on the commission, several decisions related to the new sports complex have
come before us. In each case, I joined
the others in voting unanimously to move the complex ahead.
Okay, let me
insert three disclaimers.
First, by
the time I assumed a decision-making role in the sports complex process, the decisions
were largely made and the funding secured.
Waving my hands about traffic would have been like trying to stop a
locomotive with a flyswatter. I had no
realistic chance to change the direction.
Second, I’m
not suggesting that no one ever considered the traffic implications. I suspect that sometime before my
involvement, Planning and/or Public Works looked at the sports complex versus
the traffic concern, sighed deeply, and agreed that the value to local
athletics outweighed the traffic problems.
Third, I’m
not arguing that the decision to proceed with the sports complex was
wrong. We should put a high value on
local athletics and I’m willing to agree with Planning and/or Public Works in
deciding that sports outweighs traffic in this situation.
No, my
concern is that too many of us, including me for awhile, failed to understand
that a balance had been made and that it was a balance that had significant implications
to the community. Since I’ve had my
moment of enlightenment, I’ve spoken with numerous people, including fellow commissioners,
about the siting decision and the resulting traffic issues. To a person, all have dismissed my comments,
noting that youth sports trumps all.
But we can’t
think that way. Because tomorrow, on
some other issue, we’ll decide that traffic relief trumps all. And maybe the next day, we’ll decide that
affordable housing trumps all. And eventually
we work ourselves into a corner. It’s a
very suburban style of thinking, addressing each problem in a vacuum and ignoring
the interrelationships that eventually govern the world.
Urbanism
offers a couple of insights to our conundrum, one philosophical and one
practical.
On the philosophical
side, urbanism is all about compromises.
Do we want a wider sidewalk, do we want more parking, or do we want
parklets? Recognizing that cars remain
an essential element of economic vitality, where do we put them so they serve
us without governing us? What is the
right height for a building such that it houses enough people and economic activity
that the street thrives without being overwhelmed? Once we learn to make those careful balances,
we’re better equipped to balance youth sports and traffic.
On the
practical side, if we live in close enough proximity that we can be served by
transit, then some of the traffic issues can be alleviated. I’m intrigued by the idea of a city bus, in place
of twenty cars, disgorging a passel of youth soccer players for a game. (And as member of the Transit Advisory, I
helped push, successfully, for a bus turnaround at the complex.) Today, we’re nowhere near the ideal of
transit serving youth sports, but urbanism can take us that direction.
In the real
world, many problems are ultimately unsolvable.
Pretending they don’t exist, such as when we put infinite value on youth
sports over traffic, isn’t a viable approach.
But urbanism gives us the tools to minimize the problems and to think
about balancing competing objectives.
And so I’ve
connected the dots, baseball to air safety to traffic to urbanism, using Bill
James as a guide for most of the steps.
I think he’d be pleased.
Next time, I’ll
write about a moment of clarity on urbanism and climate change.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment