device—when it is used properly in the appropriate circumstances. People have shown unmistakably that they would rather change their cities and lifestyles than curtail their personal mobility. That should be the lesson for planners and designers. The key toward successful reform, therefore, has to be programs that do not measurably impair livability and convenience for individuals and do not create sudden significant expenditures for households. But that does not mean that bad habits have to be tolerated or that constraints of various kinds cannot be imposed—as long as they are for the common good and that fact is clearly understood by everybody. The delicate matter is to gauge the threshold. Members of a prosperous and free society will simply exercise their option to move away from places that have too many controls that are not to their liking. It is somewhat ironic that this long, apologetic introduction is necessary because the following discussion is based on an attitude that is anathema to prevailing scholarly wisdom, yet it is fully in harmony with what the “real people” believe and act upon instinctively. The premise is that there should be a effort in planning and design to exploit the good qualities of the automobile and advance corrective measures where it falls short (and it certainly does). It is necessary to recognize that human beings are basically selfish and what individuals find personally convenient will often create problems for the entire community. Then, obviously, controls become necessary, and they will be accepted. There is no question that public, communal transportation is important in cities, and significant investments have to be made to expand it and to make it work. Yet, in the United States and Australia, with the best efforts, only a small portion of workers use it for commuting, and even fewer for social and personal purposes. It would, therefore, make sense to pay particular attention to how the other 95% (Commuting in America III, 2006, Transportation Research Board) of urban travel is accommodated. The public transportation part, to use a common analytic characterization, unfortunately falls within the range of a “statistical error” in terms of numbers. There is no question that pedestrian precincts, auto-restricted zones, and “people places” are joyful and attractive environments in many cities. But it is not possible to support and populate too many of them, and, if all such existing or potential improvements were to 2005 Roma Street VIDEO ANALYSIS Vijay Narang
be plotted on the maps of Australia and the United States, they would not be visible in terms of total area. Surely the rest of urban space needs at least a comparable amount of design attention. There is no question that quite a few people cannot drive, should not drive, do not wish to drive, and never will have access to a personal car. They cannot be left behind in any civilized society, and they certainly should be respected as members of their communities. Responsive services have to be available, but that does not mean that their needs have to dominate everybody else’s. But that is another discussion. Let us turn instead to what we should be doing about the automobile, or, more specifically, the motorized individual mobility system, which consists of several elements: 1. There is the vehicle itself (the rolling stock), but we are not mechanical engineers, even though we may have some opinions as to what the motor car should do and be like. 2. There is the roadway network (the infrastructure of channels) on which automobiles move and that permeates all territories, particularly urbanized ones. That is certainly a design and planning matter. 3. There is the support structure of a very large industry—parking lots, gas stations, repair garages, manufacturing plants, dealerships, chop shops, car cemeteries, etc., which we can leave for the time being, since they are secondary elements.
Engines deplete fossil fuels. They certainly do today, and we may be reaching the point where petroleum resources should be reserved for the production of vitally needed products, not to be burned away. But to say that we will run out of fuel is a chimera, an insult to modern chemistry. Machines can run on almost any fuel, ranging from good cognac to camel dung. Many of the early cars were steamers; the Wehrmacht at the end of World War II used liquid distilled from coal and wood chips; biofuels are available today. Electricity generated from renewable sources and hydrogen is waiting in the wings, and it is not inconceivable that some day nuclear power may be available safely in small packages. Of course, all this will cost more, too, because the easy energy resources will be exhausted. But that may be all to the good. Automobiles kill people and injure them. Actually, drivers mostly do that, but human beings will never be perfect operators of machinery. The often dismal statistics are better in advanced countries with more mature drivers, but much of any further improvement will have to be found in hardware. Positive and effective steps have been taken, and occupants of the strengthened capsule could be better protected only by flooding the passenger compartment with foam. The principal highway retrofitting programs today are the addition of crash barriers and other roadside safety devices. Yet, no matter what is done, an abrupt stop from more than 30 miles per hour is likely to cause internal injuries. The so far largely neglected aspect is what a vehicle may do to those outside it. Improved visibility and braking systems that preclude skidding and veering are significant accomplishments, and the next step is likely to be “proximity sensors” that give a warning or even stop the vehicle when it comes too
SITE DOCUMENTATION UQ 119
The Urban Car Over some 100 years, hundreds of car models have been produced and placed on the market. In this trial-and-error process, the consumers have made their free choices, and a single configuration has emerged. While there certainly are a few special types—today it is the sedan, the pickup, and the SUV—the popular models of each type all look about the same, are of similar size, and operate in the same way—whether the price is $12,000 or $120,000. These are not perfect designs, and—as has been noted repeatedly—there are problems, particularly when these vehicles enter dense urban environments. We are not going to throw away our existing city districts (well, not deliberately), so the search has to continue for the perfect “urban car.” Such things have actually been produced from time to time, and imaginative designers have come up with any number of prototypes, but the market has not responded. Some deliberate push in this direction may be effective at this time, particularly because the norm now is multicar households, which may very well include an urban model in their fleets. What should we look for?
Motor vehicles pollute the air. Yes, they certainly did and still do. However, engineers (particular in Japan) have shown that this problem can be controlled and eventually eliminated by advanced technology—better engines and fuels, perhaps radically different from what they have been up to now. There is clear evidence that to remedy this problem by attempts to reduce car use, i.e., vehicle miles traveled, has been ineffective. Yet the air in American and Australian cities today is measurably better than it used to be because of improved hardware. The issue is not whether to eliminate automotive pollution, but when to do it. Zero emissions are possible, and the decision is purely political. Nothing less than complete compliance by automobiles (at least in cities) should be the achievable standard. This has to become an absolute requirement. (The costs will go up slightly.)