|
"So many people. Where are they coming from... where are they
going"
Bela Lugosi introducing the awful movie "Glen
or Glenda?" (1950s) while the camera zooms in on a new-fangled
freeway.
The city is an organism. Cars are its lifeblood. Or so they'd have
you believe.
Vehicles and roads lubricate trade within
a city. They allow people to meet to perform business. They allow
people who live at "A" to drop the kids off at "B"
and get to work at "C", all within a reasonable time.
They enable citizens to interact with the city. But they are also
killing off the quality of life in the city.
This is a minority point of view. Both major
political parties view cars as an extension of the voter's body.
Petrol tax cuts and pricey freeways through native bushlands are
recent pledges of both major Australian parties. The media has not
been critical. We are addicted to cars and view them as indispensible,
if expensive. As a Dilbert
cartoon recently illustrated: we sit in traffic waiting to get to
work so that we can pay the repair bills on the car.
Cars occupy a privileged place in the built
environment. Take the heritage streetscape. The heritage facade
is a sacred beast in most newish cities and councils carefully outline
how you can proceed with renovations and maintain the consistency
of the street frontage. This usually means not allowing your renovation
to be visible from the street, and installing the correct picket
fence. But if you walk out onto a "heritage" street to
fully appreciate the splendour of this frontage (while watching
for cars), your view is blocked by a motley line of vehicles, none
obeying heritage colour requirements. This somewhat disturbs the
intended illusion. No one seems to pick up on this - cars are indispensable
and shiftable thus rendered invisible.
Secondary roads can be seen as expensive
dormitories for cars. Zoom out a bit and look down on the city:
30% (44% in L.A.) is roads and carparks. Is it justifiable? Imagine
the value of that land. Why should the road network be over-efficient
and over-resourced compared to any other kind of public infrastructure?
Acres of grey asphalt bake quietly in the
sun until the working day ends and the working population drives
slowly home in the "rush hour". This is partly the fault
of the traditional 9-5 working day. It is also partly due to people's
ability to work a great distance from where they live (because of
cars).
If this writer was a benign despot and issued
a decree that only essential private cars could use roads, what
might happen? Apart from a revolution.
People's worlds would decrease in size- they would have to live
and work within a smaller, manageable area.
People might as a result find it harder to find work - or the
nature of work would change.
'Suburbs' would become denser and contain a better land usage
mix.
Public transportation would grow and improve to cater for
the increase in passengers.
Regional towns would become an attractive alternative for
those seeking a big backyard.
Pedestrians would be thrilled to be able to cross roads safely.
Car culture contributes to air pollution - which leads to respiratory
diseases and skin cancer (not to mention the end of the world).
It contributes to noise pollution, trade deficits, injury and death,
litter, the severing of urban communities, unsustainable outer-suburban
sprawl, and an unhealthy and overweight population. We need to reduce
it to regain a reasonable living environment. How? Get out of the
car.
"Things all got too much for author Kudno Mojesic. He was
arrested in the street outside his Belgrade home attacking cars
with an axe, yelling 'Away with all cars, they are the devil's work!'
"
SUNDAY MIRROR, LONDON: 11TH JANUARY
1976. PINCHED FROM HERE.
Peter Johns
reformed driver
READING
car free cities - a blueprint
for a city without cars.
bike people
- cars, bikes, roads, cities.
|
the cars that ate the city