But, let’s thank our pixilated stars that the federal agency overseeing highways and the like has at least a few no-nonsense folks in its employ.
What could the people at Oregon’s Metro be thinking?
Well, it’s not that complicated. They have a vision, and come hell or high water, they aim to stick to it. The head of Metro wants Oregonians to take federal criticism “with a grain of salt.” Nice understatement, that.
The Vision Thing
Today’s planners hate the modern suburban city. For some reason, they’ve got this idea that the helter-skelter, closed-in old-fashioned city that evolved late in the 19th century was somehow better. Better for communities, they say. You could walk to work, they say. You could use public transport.
But cars came, and cities naturally spread out.
Of course, part of that “natural” was planned, too. To what extent the suburbs were “forced” on people by zoning changes, and to what extent merely accommodated citizen wishes, I suppose that’s open to debate. To me, it looks weighted towards actual consumer preference.
Take the spread of malls. That’s where people really like to shop. People voted with their feet, cars, dollars. And private enterprise built those malls, with government road planners (and private ones, too) merely following businessmen’s lead. By the third quarter of the last century, downtowns were being abandoned by customers across the country.
In most cities politicians looked upon this as a problem to be solved, not merely something to which they must adapt. So they set up elaborate subsidies for new mass transit systems, to encourage people to “go downtown.” They concocted new regulations to penalize the suburban “sprawl,” too. The developing idea since then has been to corral people as close as possible to those traditional downtowns.
John Charles, president of Oregon’s Cascade Policy Institute, puts Metro’s vision in context. It reminds him, he writes, “of futuristic exhibitions I saw at the New York World’s Fair as a kid in 1965. But in the real world, most people don’t want to live that way. They prefer single-family houses with a yard and a double-car garage."
Unfortunately, Charles predicts that the roads Metro ignores “will continue to deteriorate.” Shockingly, he insists, “that’s part of the plan, too."
Crazy, isn’t it? Crazy when the civil servants in charge of our roads believe that cars are evil, roads the enemy, and insist on herding us onto bike paths and trains.
But there is a method to this madness. I’ve written about it before. The planners are trying to force a complete and society-wide paradigm shift. They want us to give up our cars and walk. Or ride bicycles. Or use the mass transit that most of us in most cities ignore. And they are willing to risk more congestion to force that value transformation.
As John Charles suggests, there is vision here. It’s just whacked out.
It is, as he says, a “futuristic” vision. It sure reminds me of science fiction . . . of the socialist sort. You know, people in uniform, silvery body leotards riding on moving sidewalks from one place to another.
But it’s also nostalgic, so “19th century.” When listening to their speeches, you can almost see the sepia tint their words.
Fiction is one thing; in the real world we shouldn’t treat people as cattle. We shouldn’t force them into communities they don’t want to live in. Force them out of cars. Stop building highways just so traffic congestion will increase and they get fed up and give up and consign themselves to the crowded sidewalks and quaint cells our betters in government plan for us.
This is no brave new world. We still need roads. We don’t fly around with anti-grav paks or in hover cars. And hey: pedestrian congestion is a dystopian vision, not an ideal to work towards. In sum, it’s our world, not just that of the vision-smitten bureaucrats working against us.