-->
When it comes to finding an answer for the downtown parking
meter question, the biggest mistake Salem can make is trying to answer the
parking meter question.
That’s because Salem doesn’t have a problem for which
parking meters are a solution. Indeed,
because we have for so long refused to grapple with our real problem, parking
meters are very likely only to aggravate and accelerate downtown’s decline.
The best metaphor for Salem’s downtown and our approach to
it is a Rubik’s Cube, that maddening three-dimensional puzzle where the
challenge is to twist and rotate the small multi-colored cubes into one larger
cube with six, one-color faces. You
can’t solve a Rubik’s Cube by attacking one color at a time. The puzzle forces
you to keep all six sides in mind as you make a move, and you must often be
willing to misalign several faces temporarily to move the whole puzzle towards
a solution. Impatient attempts to attack each side as an isolated problem always
produce greater frustration later, if not complete defeat.
If we want to solve Salem’s downtown conundrum and re-create
an attractive, thriving city that again offers the benefits that urban places
provide for residents and those in surrounding areas, we have to stop trying to
address Salem’s problems in isolation.
We need to realize our problems are as connected as the faces of a
Rubik’s Cube, and that we will not make progress unless we are willing to think
about the puzzle as a whole.
And thinking about the puzzle as a whole starts with
recognizing the main issue: Why did
Salem change from a thriving and attractive small urban center to one that
seems to present nothing but insoluble problems, problems that regularly defeat
the best efforts of well-intended people and investments of millions of
dollars?
I submit that the main cause of Salem’s decline is that, to
a very great extent, we stopped planning and building in Salem as a place for
people, and started concentrating all our efforts on serving only a particular
kind of people: people in cars.
The differences between a place built for people and a place
built for cars are both profound and pervasive, showing up in ways big and
small, far and wide. In Salem’s downtown, our focus on cars first has almost
entirely displaced and depleted the graceful social capital that was built up
and built into Salem before the post-WWII era of auto-mobility. And our failure
to come to grips with the way that people—even people who arrive in
cars—dislike and avoid places built to privilege cars is an important reason that
so much of what we try to do for or to downtown Salem is fruitless
wheel-spinning.
Like a Rubik’s Cube, our challenge has six faces and a hub,
around which the faces revolve. The hub
of Salem’s downtown puzzle is putting people first, not just people in cars. That
is the central hub because that’s what connects all of the six faces, none of
which can safely be ignored.
Around that hub, imagine a cube with four sides, a top, and
a bottom.
- One side is market-sector
economic goods and services, which are normally allocated by ability to pay;
- a
second face is public-sector goods, like buses, streets, bridges, roads,
schools, libraries, and parks, which are very often allocated by other means;
- a
third face is public health and safety, which is usually seen as a cost only,
and is often an unrecognized victim of choices in other areas;
- and the fourth
face is our natural capital: the renewable and nonrenewable natural resources,
including places for pollution to “go,” and which provides the real basis for
our wealth and well-being.
The bottom of the box, which is supposed to support the
sides firmly and evenly, is our method for deciding the relationship between
the sides of the box: what we will provide for Salem via the market sector,
what the public sector should do, how much weight we will give to public health
and safety concerns, and how much of our finite stock of natural capital we
will spend, and how much we should leave for the people who will follow
us.
And the top of the box, which might
be thought of as the lid, or the opening that lets us access what’s inside, is
our time horizon: are we patient, willing to study a problem long enough to
consider how it looks from each of the four sides, or are we impatient, petulantly
demanding on aligning the green squares on one side, no matter what that does
to the rest?
Until Salem recognizes the central hub of our downtown
dilemma—overindulgence of the automobile at the expense of the habitability and
livability of downtown—and the way in which premature, single-focus solutions
to one problem just creates bigger problems to deal with elsewhere, we are
doomed to spin and twist at our little cube, while downtown suffers and the
last remnants of the once-thriving city dwindle away.
6 comments:
Great, well thought out article. I have never lived in a city with so much opportunity, but we squander it every year in search of individual projects that do not benefit the whole.
For the moment, I will set aside the question of weather or not we need meters right now.
Downtown merchants are trying to ban responsible parking management forever. If, in spite of ourselves, Salem ever does right the ship, and find a path to success--visitors from around the region will be competing for a finite amount of space downtown to store their vehicles while they live, shop, and work. If the petition is successful, we will not have the necessary tools to deal with that problem.
This petition is very bad for our physical health, our economic health and the health of our planet.
In just one small shopping district in California, Donald Shoup calculated that drivers cruising for free parking traveled 950,000 additional vehicle miles, burned an extra 47,000 gallons of gasoline burned, and emitted 730 tons of carbon dioxide:
http://www.onearth.org/blog/time-to-put-another-1-billion-in-the-meter
This is why the EPA has incorporated parking reform into their recommendations for promoting smart growth:
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/EPAParkingSpaces06.pdf
All those additional VMT increases the number of conflicts between distracted drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. By putting vulnerable road users in danger it makes these modes less safe and attractive which increases obesity and lowers life expectancy. This is why the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention recommends parking reform as part of their Healthy Communities Initiative:
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/transportation/vmt_strategy.htm
So regardless of weather or not we need them now, this petition, if successful, will make it illegal for Salem to implement modern parking reform to address the problems of global warming, obesity, and traffic crashes... Forever.
It will take off the table on of the most important and effective transportation demand management tools off the table... Forever.
And we will have you, in part, to thank for it.
Wonderfully written and thought-out. I heartily agree. The City of Salem lacks an overarching vision of what Salem should become.
Example: yesterday Public Works director Peter Fernandez was quoted as saying that the future demands that a Third Bridge be built. Who the heck is The Future?
The future doesn't exist yet. The future is created through present day actions/decisions/choices. Yet as you said in this post, we lack a cohesive comprehensive vision of a desired future Salem.
Policies are decided piecemeal, a Third Bridge here, downtown parking meters there, riverfront development somewhere else. Etc. Etc. Those who advocate parking meters have a single-minded focus on raising revenues for the City, discouraging people in cars from visiting downtown, or something else.
Single-mindedness is fine when driving a nail, but not when building an entire house. If the pieces don't fit together well, you end up with mess. Whether this be a city, or a house.
Another good parking story from Matt Yglesias of Slate. Yglesias was a long time writer for the Center For American Progress (for those of you that think parking reform in a Chamber of Commerce conspiracy). So our Mayor and City Manager have adopted one of the most important talking points of modern urbanism--"there's no such thing as free parking"--and it has ignited the strongest backlash from Salem's left. Only in Salem.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/07/free_parking_isn_t_free_parking_mandates_hurt_america_s_cities.html
Walker, this is an unexpected turn!
For those of us who agree that "overindulgence of the automobile at the expense of the habitability and livability of downtown" is a huge problem, there's a kind of prima facie case that meters could be a good thing.
Evidence from other cities also suggests that meters help with turn-over, help customers find spots where they need them, and are consistent with American trends to apply market pricing to solve allocation problems.
While parts of downtown may not meet 85% peak usage, some parts seem to meet a 90% usage and look to be good candidates for meters.
It would be helpful if instead of saying it's a "puzzle," you would drill into more detail on why you are so sure meters downtown are a bad idea. Especially since you are an advocate for lower-car living and planning, your detailed critique of on-street parking meters would be useful for those of us inclined support metering. Your arguments carry more weight on this than the arguments of those who embrace the default Moses-Eisenhower school of mid-century Autoism. More than most, you can see ways to get more people downtown with fewer cars - so why isn't metering something that should be a part of this?
Elsewhere A commenter has said that meters are bad and said "Some things are just basic and axiomatic." Too much of the debate has seemed to accept as axiomatic, without evidence beyond anecdote, the notion that people in cars will automatically flee downtown at the slightest hint of meters.
Please consider returning to this topic with more analysis!
"It would be helpful if instead of saying it's a "puzzle," you would drill into more detail on why you are so sure meters downtown are a bad idea."
I have never said or written that meters are a bad idea.
That said, I do not see any evidence that the city's meter proposal is any sort of rational prescription for the health of the patient (downtown), based on any sort of thoughtful consideration of what ails the patient, or identification of the causes of the ailments, or searches for alternatives to assess so that the least-disruptive intervention is tried first, before more extreme ones.
"First do no harm" applies to lots of endeavors, not just medicine. The first prerequisite to good solutions is good problem definition. I have yet to see anything that defines the problem that parking meters are to solve except in a question-begging way ("We need a third bridge because we need a third bridge!")
It's quite possible that parking meters play a role in a thoughtful, holistic plan for revitalizing and improving downtown such that people want to be in and enjoy that place, and for accommodating them in all their variety. And when I see that plan, and where parking meters fit into it, it's possible that it will be worthy of support.
But "Oh Sh-t oh dear! We've spent so much money on sprawl that we've let the parking infrastructure degrade, and now we must have a cash infusion" is not, to my eye, anything more than the metaphorical "I've got a hammer, funny how everything looks like a nail."
I definitely want to tackle your inquiry in greater detail, but time is in very short supply these days. One thing I can say is that Thomas Aquinas got it right when he said "Beware the man of one book" -- even if that book is Shoup's "High Cost of Free Parking." I have seen how monomaniacal advocates of their preferred fixes for ailing downtowns can end up destroying them, such as with pedestrian malls, where cars were banned, which nearly destroyed numerous towns in America -- but with the best of intentions!
The ravages caused by automobile in the city is very much like cancer in the body -- we use one word to describe a huge host of illnesses, with different causes, often-wildly different reactions to similar treatments, and different trajectories. We all know chemotherapy is wonderful -- if you have one of the kinds of cancer that responds to it.
I suggest that we be cautious about treatments, and decide before embarking on any treatment what our experimental endpoints will be so that we are not mentally or politically locked into one that isn't working well.
Post a Comment