Twenty years ago, driving north from McColl, South Carolina to Bartonsville, Vermont, at about 6am, in
the deep dark of the early morning, we encountered stop-and-go traffic on the
Beltway outside of Washington, D.C. Probably it was to be expected, a traffic
jam in the still dark, near D.C., though not that close, but we didn’t.
Starting out the trip in the early evening, we had been taking advantage of the
night, racing north. There we were, with neither city nor suburbs in sight but
traffic everywhere you could see. For us, it was exotic; for the thousands of
drivers on the Beltway, it was daily procedure.
Gridlock does not discourage growth. Just ask anyone who deals with the Long
Island Expressway, which is essentially a moving parking lot many hours of the
day.
In this issue, Nelson England reports on the controversy over whether or not
to expand the Lamar Street Bridge. Not surprisingly, for those familiar with
the Chronicle and with Nelson, although fairly presenting all the issues
and opinions involved, the piece clearly comes down against widening the
bridge. If you haven’t figured this out by the end of the second paragraph, the
sentence “It was obvious that a majority of the audience saw the engineers’
arguments as Orwellian logic based on self-fulfilling traffic projection models
left over from the glory days of the Petroleum Age that now fly in the face of
common sense goals for preserving the inner city…” pretty much gives it
away.
Disagreement among the Chronicle staff on issues is common. Whenever
people address the Chronicle as though we speak with one voice and one
ideology, it is hard to figure out the correct response. There is consensus on
some issues, but most of the time it’s more a commitment to a loose, unstated,
nonbinding platform. The paper has a fierce commitment to preserving Austin,
maintaining the characteristics that make it a great city, and preserving its
environmental integrity. There are differences as to how to achieve these ends.
I, for instance, believe that if we don’t plan for traffic it will destroy
us.
Whether or not Austin should have a cross-town expressway used to be a hotly
debated issue, and over the years there were several attempts to turn one
prominent cross street or another into it, notably Koenig and Enfield. All were
defeated. Most, if not all, were opposed by the Chronicle. No cross-town
artery was designated or constructed. Now, there is constant stop-and-go or, at
least, severely backed up traffic, on three or four cross-town thoroughfares,
including Enfield, 35th/38th, and 45th Streets. Not just at rush hour, but much
of the day, the traffic is heavy and getting worse. Instead of negative impact
on one neighborhood, the situation has an impact on several. Even with a
crosstown artery, there would be greater traffic in many of these neighborhoods
as Austin grows and the neighborhoods around Austin grow — but isn’t that the
point?
The compact city seems like a great idea, only it seems to mean that every
square foot of Austin proper will be developed, while the shocking suburban
sprawl continues unabated. Having an opinion on what rate development should
continue is a lot like having an opinion on the weather (quality and direction
of growth are a little more controllable).
Twenty-five years ago, the issue was defined as growth versus no-growth. The
former group argued about the economic benefits of growth; the latter argued
that Austin’s identity was as important as the economy. Over the years, the
terms and the appellations have changed, but the issue hasn’t. Now is the time
to stop a moment and think about that vision thing. What kind of city do we
want to live in? What are the actual issues affecting our city?
There seems little question that the city (in this case Capital Metro) should
make an immediate long-term commitment to developing light rail. The city which
has long talked about being bicycle-friendly has done little in this direction
over the last dozen years except use city money to build a veloway at Circle C.
We don’t need a pedestrian coordinator, we need an overall commitment from the
city to facilitate alternative methods of transportation because they make this
a more livable city. Commuter train service between Austin and San Antonio is
worth exploring, as is a highway bypass. Some of these are projects that
I once would have opposed, because they encouraged development, that now seem
necessary to facilitate the growth that has occurred, and to provide relief for
the inner city.
Promoting gridlock downtown, though, is probably not a way to promote the
inner city. Reference the top anecdote: The cars are going to come. How we are
going to handle them is the question. It often seems as though the attitude is
to punish people for having cars: If they must drive, let them suffer in
traffic. There is, instead, rational traffic coordination and road planning
that complements the environment and serves the community.
I would love for Austin to be as it was when I arrived in 1974, but that is
neither an option nor the question. The question is where will Austin be in 20
years, and where will it be in 40 years? The devastation of growth has probably
been even more deadly than the no-growthers once predicted. But what is
surprising is that the vitality and identity of Austin has survived this
battering growth. Our planning has to reflect our concerns for the kind of city
in which we want to live. Those ugly old dinosaur cars are the reality of our
present and our immediate future. Even if the city miraculously built a light
rail line tomorrow, it would take decades before it really began to influence
growth patterns. Downtown traffic is going to get worse. Polemicizing against
it is not going to make it go away and planning against it is not going to make
it go away. I have no answers here, just a suggestion that the terms of the
debate conform to the realities confronting us. It is a discussion we should be
able to enter into rationally with all viewpoints represented.
I don’t know what I think about the bridge except this: Downtown traffic is
bad and getting worse. This adversely impacts on neighborhoods. Ignoring it is
not going to make it go away, though traffic planning and rerouting may help.
Most of all, the city we live in — the city of people, schools, ideas,
businesses, music, arts, the environment — demands citizen vigilance and
involvement as part of its atmosphere. As difficult as it has been to fight for
a vision of this city for the last 20 years, deciding exactly and realistically
what that vision is, and how to achieve it, will be even harder in the next 20.
n
This article appears in October 11 • 1996 and October 11 • 1996 (Cover).