(Once again,
there’s been no progress on the Fairgrounds update. I remain surprised by the slowness of the
process, which right now is fully out of my hands, but I’ll keep pushing. Perhaps the pieces will be in place for my next
post.)
A feature of
the annual meetings of the Congress for the New Urbanism is the Open Source
sessions. Any attendee can propose a
topic of discussion, organize a circle of chairs, and begin a
conversation. And many of the topics are
well worthy of discussion. My only
frustration with the Open Source concept is that too often there are multiple interesting
discussions being conducted simultaneously.
At CNU 23,
recently concluded in Dallas, the only Open Source in which I was able to
participate was organized by transit consultant Jarrett Walker. He didn’t have a focused topic, but only
suggested that those interested gather to chat about transit. Despite the imprecise subject, a discussion
resulted that offered an interesting insight.
A couple of
minutes into the discussion, Walker stopped us and asked the question. “What is
transit?”
It seemed a
question with a simple answer.
Personally, my initial response would have been bus or rail routes operated
by a transit agency. But it would have
been a simple-minded answer that was quickly overrun by the discussion.
First
someone noted that public ownership wasn’t a necessary attribute, with private
buses, jitneys in Brooklyn and collectivos in Mexico City, filling an essential
role.
Then someone
pointed out that taxis were definitely a component of a transit system. (It was a point that I’d made in this space over three
years ago, so I could hardly disagree.) And then someone else added that the taxis of
the sharing age, Uber and Lyft, had to be included with taxis. And that shared-ownership cars like ZipCars
belonged in the same category.
And someone
else, who came from a city where bike sharing was managed by the local transit
agency, added that mode to the discussion.
By the time
we finished, about the only modes of transportation that we wouldn’t have considered
transit were privately owned cars, bicycles, and shoes that were used for the
movement of one’s self or one’s family and friends without compensation.
And having
pondered the question since returning home from CNU 23, I’ve come to realize
that even those “non-transit” modes have blurry edges, such as providing
parking at transit stations to facilitate a private transportation/public
transit interface, improving sidewalks to bus stops, allowing bikes to ride on
buses and trains, facilitating kiss-and-ride drop-offs at train stations, etc.
Human beings
like to compartmentalize. It’s our way
of making sense of the world. But the
best insights and solutions come when we find a way to ignore our arbitrary
dividing lines. Mass and energy were
considered different concepts until Einstein formulated that E=mc^2, changing
the world of physics forever. And his
successors have been chasing ever broader “unified theories” since then.
I think a
similar argument can be made about transportation. It’s easy to think about transportation as
private cars versus public transit. I’ve
certainly done so in this space. But,
even if it makes our heads hurt, we’re better off thinking about a unified
theory of transportation, where the most efficient, convenient, safe, and
environmentally friendly option is available for each trip we take, whether to a
neighborhood deli, to a job in a nearby town, or to a faraway destination.
I don’t know
where a unified theory of human transportation will lead us, but suggest that it’s
a better way to tackle the challenges of transportation, and of urbanism, than
the public/private or car/bus silos into which we often retreat.
The next
post will hopefully touch upon several Petaluma issues, including the
Fairgrounds. But if that topic still isn’t
ripe for discussion, I’ll ruminate on municipal fines, a topic that has a
connection to urbanism.
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