
A bit of local activism can sometimes pay. You can disagree with the State Department of Transportation and get your way.
Well, living on campus at RIT in Henrietta and working on Monroe Ave in Pittsford, I can attest to the fact that something needs to be done at Jefferson-Clover, Jefferson-Sutherland, and possibly even Monroe-Sutherland. I never go as far as Main St, but I'm sure things are pretty hairy there as well. Traffic through there is so ridiculous, that I'm actually taking 390 to 590, and getting off at Monroe in Brighton now--miles out of the way and yet significantly faster sometimes. Wether or not Pittsford residents like it, there are a lot of cars clogging up Jefferson Rd, and they need to be able to get through--a two lane road just isn't cutting it any more.
Of course, they do have a point that if they fix the problem too well, it's just going to get worse. Ease of traffic flow attracts more residents and more traffic, and more residents and traffic attract more businesses, which increase traffic again...
In the realm of a solution space, a small local optimum hardly solves the big problems. Here not even the union of all small local optimums can reach global optimum. That requires redefining the problem space. Only then can we see the larger solution space.
Driving itself induces demand for yet more driving. With sufficient density, in the urban core, people can find the services and products they need within a five or ten minute walk. A margin of the population cannot find what they need and thus demands a car, which enables not just access to a few marginal choices but to a new lifestyle, opportunities to live, work, shop, and play not otherwise available to the carless. Lack of marginal demand for some businesses in the urban core causes some businesses to falter. Yet more consumers cannot find what they need within a five or ten minute walk. As space for roads and parking displace some businesses, an additional margin cannot find what they need and thus demands a car.
Economic support of these opportunities grow yet new business, drawing more consumers, drawing yet more business, in cycles drawing yet more consumers to demand cars and driving. Growth and buzz along new centers of development lead to new opportunities there and to decline in the city. Green space and easements once kept to maintain an architectural pattern suitable for walking shifts in zoning and new patterns meant for parking and driving. Over the decades, through multiple feedbacks, the excitement of growth and opportunity, and the loss of grocery and shopping make cars, roads, parking, and traffic a necessity. This cycle of development and decline first in the city, then in some first ring suburbs, leads to a second cycle of outer ring suburbs, and then a third.
Yet some metropolises, such as Manhattan, Hong Kong, San Francisco, Portland and Curitiba, avoid this pattern of growth, but remain or have become centers for vitality and development. Cities like these either have natural barriers to growth, such as water or mountains, or legal and architectural ones, such as urban growth boundaries and limits to water and utility networks, and sufficient transportation infrastructure that even a majority with cars choose not to drive. This pattern of sustainability and life could exist anywhere. It starts with imagination and think outside the box to redefine the problem.
Insightful.
So what do you propose? That all metropolitan areas attempt to emulate the Manhattans and Hong Kongs of the world?
If not, what happens when this cycle has finished paving over the inner city and all of its concentric rings of suburbs? Is there an end? an eventual collapse? Or, will all cities perpetuate this "growth" until the country is a woven mess of megalopolises, blending from Boston right into Los Angeles?
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |