CONTACTTRAFFICABOUT TOM VANDERBILTOTHER WRITING CONTACT ABOUT THE BOOK

Silly, Controversial, Progressive, Then Obvious

silly

I had come across the above slide, via a post at Kottke’s blog, and it is taken from a talk by a Harvard University researcher named Lant Pritchett. I was intrigued by the progression Pritchett had theorized in the way that once-seemingly controversial issues (his slide illustrates changing attitudes over interracial marriage) had, over time, simply become part of the normal state of affairs. Now, clearly this is not always a linear, teleological dynamic, but it’s interesting to try and think of other examples where it applies (a woman’s right to vote, recycling, smoking is bad for you, etc.).

I was also interested in what areas of traffic safety and the larger culture of traffic to which it might apply — seat belt usage, for example (or the idea of laws for same), driving while drunk, motorcycle helmets (or helmets in hockey and other sports), etc. And I found myself reaching for the concept in a recent column for Reclaim, the magazine of NYC’s Transportation Alternatives (of which I’m a member; if you think, by the way, that this makes me some anti-car radical, I’m also a member of AAA). The column was prompted by some recent commentary in the press, in light of the recent closing to traffic of a few blocks of Broadway in Times Square, that the NYC DOT was running a series of “elitist” reforms.

Whether this would in and of itself be a bad thing is another issue altogether — for all kinds of civic reforms we now take for granted and that make cities livable places began as the work of progressive “elites” — but I took exception with the idea that programs meant to benefit pedestrians and transit users, who represent by far the majority mode of Manhattan, were “elitist” policies causing harm to some disenfranchised majority of New York car users. But I am interested also in the reception of this and other projects via Pritchett’s evolution; in certain quarters of the media, they have been branded in the “silly” and “controversial” vein, though as this “Q Poll” indicates (the poll found early support for the Times Square project, support that might rise if the media didn’t always frame the story so negatively, or if the project’s benefits were explained to more people), we might already be moving closer to obvious.

In any case, the essay is here, or after the jump.

One didn’t have to read too far in a recent New York profile of New York City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan before, as if adhering to some kind of natural law, the ‘e’ word was invoked. No, I’m not talking about extremist–though that was used as well. I’m talking about ‘elite.’

“Why does transportation reform have to feel so elitist?” the article’s author wondered. “There is a sense of the elite telling the everyday people what’s good for them, and that’s simply not appreciated,” said Council Member John Liu. “I think she’s an anti-car extremist,” said Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz. “It’s kind of easy for Ms. Sadik-Khan to be holier than thou and tell people they have no business driving. She may live down the block from the subway station—but most people don’t.”

There may be no more abused word in contemporary political discourse than “elite.” It last surfaced, of course, in the presidential campaign, when various aspects of Barack Obama’s personality (curiously, it was less often applied to his policies) were deemed ‘elite’ and ‘out of touch.’ As the cultural critic Thomas Frank has noted of the “elite” pejorative, “it is by this familiar maneuver that the people who have designed and supported the policies that have brought the class divide back to America–the people who have actually, really transformed our society from an egalitarian into an elitist one–perfume themselves with the essence of honest toil, like a cologne distilled from the sweat of laid-off workers.”

And so it has been that the recent initiatives of the New York City Department of Transportation–installing new bike lanes, its wildly successful “Summer Streets” program, its intensely scrutinized temporary makeover of Times Square–have been criticized by some as an upper-crust revanchist takeover of the city’s streets, an act of oppression against the city’s long-suffering automotive proles.

A few facts–”stubborn things,” as Reagan called them–are in order. The most obvious thing to note is that car drivers make up a very small portion of the commuter population–16.9 percent of travelers into the proposed “congestion zone” of Manhattan, and that includes trucks. And as the New York City Independent Budget Office has found, those people who do drive into Manattan have a median annual income that exceeds other commuters by some 28.6 percent. And yet it’s the cyclists who are elite.

Council Member Liu complained that Sadik-Khan’s job is not to be a “visionary.” Rather it’s to strike a “balance between all the entities competing for street space.” Well, let’s think about that “balance” under the status quo so beloved by Liu. In regards to the Times Square project, the space under consideration currently hosts nearly seven times as many pedestrians as vehicles. And yet how much space was devoted to those pedestrians? 11 percent.

What has been happening in Times Square, among other places, is a built environment echo of the economic policies of the right over the past few decades–while a “culture war” is used as smokescreen, the actual apportioning of resources becomes further skewed between the majority and a truly elite minority. New York itself recognized this problem, in a more instructive 1980 article by the famed urbanist William H. Whyte. Discussing a number of improvements that would free up traffic space, he argued, “it should not by default revert to privileged car owners. It should be given back to the pedestrians from whom it was taken in the first place.”

The economist Lant Pritchett has a shorthand by which he describes the evolving patterns of social acceptance of so-called “big ideas”: Silly, controversial, progressive, then obvious. Remember, it was “elite” reformers that helped overturn slavery and enable women’s suffrage–to name just two once-acceptable, now unthinkable social conditions.

“Kill the street,” the Modernist architect Le Corbusier once declared in a manifesto for a utopian city built around the car. Generations of traffic engineers did their best to oblige. But the street is coming back in New York–the street built for many users–and someday, if not quite today, it won’t seem silly, controversial or even progressive. It will just seem obvious.

Tom Vanderbilt is the author of Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What it Says About Us) as well as the blog, How We Drive.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]

This entry was posted on Friday, July 31st, 2009 at 10:53 am and is filed under Congestion, Cyclists, Drivers, Environmental factors, Roads, Traffic Culture, Traffic History, Traffic safety, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “Silly, Controversial, Progressive, Then Obvious”

  1. Russ Says:

    It would appear that changing attitudes about our behavior toward others, as in the example in the article, is a somewhat different issue from deciding who has access to scarce resources, in this case, city streets. If we want fewer vehicles in New York City, or just in Manhattan, there are various means to that end — randomly rationing access, vehicle and gas taxes, portal tolls, etc. All except random rationing, will favor the wealthy over the less wealthy. New York City residential locations have advantages and disadvantages for mobility, ranging from living in Manhattan to the Rockaways. There is no optimum solution but only a political one. This is apparently why the Councilmen in the far outer borough districts are against pricing approaches while those from Manhattan districts favor them. We need to seek new approaches that provides more convenience and mobility for the outer boroughs if we ever expect to alter the status quo. But a new approach will require some fresh thinking, which appears to be lacking to date.

  2. John Says:

    I’m interested to see how this gradual public acceptance goes with cellphone use in cars. I do not believe the data against (for cellphone use, not texting, which involves a different attention) is completely rigorous, but there is a groundswell against.

  3. Jack Says:

    It is easier for those who don’t understand or who sincerely disagree to label the messengers as elitists. Once our mobility became auto dependent the need for an orderly flow led to plumbers (known as transportation engineers) instead of what was really needed, innovative architects who could explain various options.

    Should we continue to favor cars over people? To me the answer is simple and obvious, the default mode should favor pedestrians. Ultimately for those who can ride a pair of wheels, nothing else comes close in providing a more efficient, healthier, environmentally friendly, cost effective, dependable and flexible options as man’s greatest invention.

Leave a Reply

Traffic Tom Vanderbilt

How We Drive is the companion blog to Tom Vanderbilt’s New York Times bestselling book, Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us), published by Alfred A. Knopf in the U.S. and Canada, Penguin in the U.K, and in languages other than English by a number of other fine publishers worldwide.

Please send tips, news, research papers, links, photos (bad road signs, outrageous bumper stickers, spectacularly awful acts of driving or parking or anything traffic-related), or ideas for my Slate.com Transport column to me at: info@howwedrive.com.

For publicity inquiries, please contact Kate Runde at Vintage: krunde@randomhouse.com.

For editorial inquiries, please contact Zoe Pagnamenta at The Zoe Pagnamenta Agency: zoe@zpagency.com.

For speaking engagement inquiries, please contact
Kim Thornton at the Random House Speakers Bureau: rhspeakers@randomhouse.com.

Order Traffic from:

Amazon | B&N | Borders
Random House | Powell’s

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
U.S. Paperback UK Paperback
Traffic UK
Drive-on-the-left types can order the book from Amazon.co.uk.

For UK publicity enquiries please contact Rosie Glaisher at Penguin.

Upcoming Talks

April 9, 2008.
California Office of Traffic Safety Summit
San Francisco, CA.

May 19, 2009
University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies
Bloomington, MN

June 23, 2009
Driving Assessment 2009
Big Sky, Montana

June 26, 2009
PRI World Congress
Rotterdam, The Netherlands

June 27, 2009
Day of Architecture
Utrecht, The Netherlands

July 13, 2009
Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals (ATSIP)
Phoenix, AZ.

August 12-14
Texas Department of Transportation “Save a Life Summit”
San Antonio, Texas

September 2, 2009
Governors Highway Safety Association Annual Meeting
Savannah, Georgia

September 11, 2009
Oregon Transportation Summit
Portland, Oregon

October 8
Honda R&D Americas
Raymond, Ohio

October 10-11
INFORMS Roundtable
San Diego, CA

October 21, 2009
California State University-San Bernardino, Leonard Transportation Center
San Bernardino, CA

November 5
Southern New England Planning Association Planning Conference
Uncasville, Connecticut

January 6
Texas Transportation Forum
Austin, TX

January 19
Yale University
(with Donald Shoup; details to come)

Monday, February 22
Yale University School of Architecture
Eero Saarinen Lecture

Friday, March 19
University of Delaware
Delaware Center for Transportation

April 5-7
University of Utah
Salt Lake City
McMurrin Lectureship

April 19
International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (Organization Management Workshop)
Austin, Texas

Monday, April 26
Edmonton Traffic Safety Conference
Edmonton, Canada

Monday, June 7
Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals
Niagara Falls, Ontario

Wednesday, July 6
Fondo de Prevención Vial
Bogotá, Colombia

Tuesday, August 31
Royal Automobile Club
Perth, Australia

Wednesday, September 1
Australasian Road Safety Conference
Canberra, Australia

Wednesday, September 22

Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s
Traffic Incident Management Enhancement Program
Statewide Conference
Wisconsin Dells, WI

Wednesday, October 20
Rutgers University
Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation
Piscataway, NJ

Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Ontario Injury Prevention Resource Centre
Injury Prevention Forum
Toronto

Monday, May 2
Idaho Public Driver Education Conference
Boise, Idaho

Tuesday, June 2, 2011
California Association of Cities
Costa Mesa, California

Sunday, August 21, 2011
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Attitudes: Iniciativa Social de Audi
Madrid, Spain

April 16, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Gardens Theatre, QUT
Brisbane, Australia

April 17, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Centennial Plaza, Sydney
Sydney, Australia

April 19, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Melbourne Town Hall
Melbourne, Australia

January 30, 2013
University of Minnesota City Engineers Association Meeting
Minneapolis, MN

January 31, 2013
Metropolis and Mobile Life
School of Architecture, University of Toronto

February 22, 2013
ISL Engineering
Edmonton, Canada

March 1, 2013
Australian Road Summit
Melbourne, Australia

May 8, 2013
New York State Association of
Transportation Engineers
Rochester, NY

August 18, 2013
BoingBoing.com “Ingenuity” Conference
San Francisco, CA

September 26, 2013
TransComm 2013
(Meeting of American Association
of State Highway and Transportation
Officials’ Subcommittee on Transportation
Communications.
Grand Rapids MI

 

 

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Twitter
July 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031