 Hi, I'm Jack Owen. You know, when folks my age were growing up, we didn't have a whole lot of trouble getting around the neighborhood. You could pretty much walk anywhere you wanted to go. Or if you wanted to go more than a block or two, you could always ride your bike or jump on a streetcar or hop a bus. Being able to get around was something we took for granted. I suspect most of us didn't really miss the old neighborhood after we left. Didn't much think about it at all. In fact, until our own kids started growing up, and they couldn't get around alone. Things sure have changed. It seems like walking isn't even a real option anymore. That is, not if the reason you're doing it is to get some place. There aren't many streetcars around now, and riding transit can be a real mixed blessing. If you're a senior without a driver's license, or a kid, or a mom, well, you're pretty much stuck most of the time. Unfortunately, the car is usually the only way to go. Except, of course, when it stops. And it stops a lot. In spite of all the effort we make to improve the situation, like new freeways and one-way streets and plenty of parking, we don't seem to reduce the traffic jams very much. In fact, traffic in our newer suburbs often seems worse than in our older central cities. We moved all the way out here to get away from this traffic, and we're still in it. I stopped working downtown because I hated the rush hour so much. Much worse out here than it was in the city. It's very frustrating. Living out here seems like I'm always in my car. There's just no other way to get around. It's obvious to me as I look at urban America, we look at the phenomenon of growth in suburbia and how we have not been able to link transportation in an integrated fashion to have proper land use and the movement of people to work, to recreate. And I really think we've missed a mark in many of our urban cities. I mean, when you contrast suburbian areas with an area like this downtown pedestrian mall, all one has to do is to observe that people are interacting as opposed to what we see in suburban America. We see the fast-moving automobiles, impersonal, very little opportunity for human interactions. The irony is communities that work the way they're supposed to exist all over the United States. We just haven't been paying attention. These traditional neighborhoods were generally built between the mid-1800s and World War II and connected to the rest of the city by public transportation. Although primarily residential, they often included commercial, even industrial districts. Over the years, these neighborhoods have retained their property values. Their designs, if anything, have grown more satisfying with age. Take this traditional neighborhood, for example. Its streets are laid out in a simple interconnected pattern so that every home is within an easy walk of a bus stop. Compare that to a recently built suburb with its cul-de-sacs and curvilinear streets. This pattern makes it hard for people to walk to bus stops or for buses to reach people's homes. There is another benefit of the interconnected street grid in older communities. It breaks the neighborhood into blocks and provides a variety of routes between them. This configuration disperses automobile traffic over many streets, enabling drivers to bypass congestion on any one. But in the new suburban neighborhoods, many local streets typically empty into a few collector streets and then to even fewer large arterial streets. This funneling of traffic onto a small number of large streets forces all our eggs into one basket and overfills the basket. This is one cause of the traffic congestion that seems to spring up overnight in the suburbs. Traditional neighborhood streets invite you to enjoy them on foot. Notice the trees and sidewalk, how they define a comfortable human-scale outdoor room. Compare that to a typical suburban street that informs you with subtle and not-so-subtle cues to get back in your car where you belong. Older streets are intentionally narrow with small radius corners and a buffer of on-street parking. Warning drivers to take it easy and signalling pedestrians, this is your turf as much as theirs. Current suburban codes often mandate streets that are over-designed. That is, residential streets wide enough for the biggest fire engines of moving vans to negotiate at speed. And with extremely wide radius corners, streets that seem to encourage drivers to go faster than the posted speed limit. When it comes to commercial areas, the contrast is even more pronounced. Major streets in older communities usually have one or at most two lanes of traffic in each direction. Since there are lots of them in the neighborhood, they don't have to be too wide. They are lined with parking spaces and fronted by commercial and residential buildings close to the street. They are used safely by cars, buses, cyclists, pedestrians. Compare that to typical modern suburban arterials. They are designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to move lots and lots of traffic. Because they are wide, they are expensive to build. Because they are expensive, there are fewer of them. Because there are few, they are often jammed to capacity. Suburban arterials are rarely pleasant places to walk or cycle or take the bus. Not only are they uncomfortable for waiting passengers who often feel dangerously exposed, they are intimidating to cross. Another important difference between older communities and newer suburbs is zoning. Older neighborhoods are zoned to permit different land uses to occur in close proximity. Homes are near stores and offices and schools. It's easy to walk and must use a car. The drive is short. But in suburbia, we have rigorously segregated everything. Houses with houses. Stores with stores. Offices with offices. In most residential neighborhoods, the only place you can walk to is another house or another garage. It's revealing that the placement of suburban garages makes them the single most prominent architectural feature in the typical streetscape. Everything else it would seem is subordinate. Here's where the car lives, it proclaims. Oh, and the driver lives in the house out back. Homes in traditional neighborhoods also have garages, but you would never know it going down the street. They are carefully hidden out of sight in keeping with the car's lesser significance to the life of the community. To find a solution to traffic congestion we must understand the defining role of transportation technology, not just cars, in the evolution of our towns and cities. Up until the turn of the century, American towns and cities grew outward from a central commons or civic center. Communities were organized in easy-to-remember grid patterns that offered a variety of direct routes between different locations. Since the only means of transportation was by foot, horseback, or horse-drawn carriage, the living space was compact. To keep distances as short as possible, homes, stores, and businesses were built close together. When the electric streetcar appeared in the 1890s, it brought with it a new approach to urban design. Towns now grew in corridors along the linear right-of-way, although residential space was still organized in relatively small neighborhoods, giving residents easy walking access to the tracks. Stores and businesses clustered along the length of these corridors, so people were able to take the streetcar to shop or go to work. In these older streetcar suburbs, many people still use transit today because it's so convenient. I normally like to take the rapid because it's convenient and it's affordable. I take it to the Browns and Indians games. I live right over there, and I love being close to the rapid. I don't worry about getting to work or to the store or even to the airport. It allows me to prepare for work before I get there in the morning and I don't have to worry about traffic or finding a parking space. Many towns and neighborhoods were built on the linear streetcar model during the early 20th century, but with the rise of automobile use and the push to provide affordable housing for returning veterans after World War II, few thrived in their original form. The great post-war building boom was predicated on the freedom of automobile travel and an unprecedented peacetime commitment to build supportive infrastructure. Flushed with victory, Americans set out to invent a new urban design that took full advantage of automobile inspired opportunities. Segregated zoning was rigorously implemented assigning residential, commercial and industrial developments to widely separated enclaves. The grid was abandoned in favor of free-form, unconnected curvilinear streets which at their best followed the prevailing landscape, but which nonetheless produced convoluted, confusing routes of travel and a veritable riot of cul-de-sacs. Because land was so cheap and proximity such a low priority, suburban development projects gobbled up the countryside in prodigious bites. The end result was disconnected living spaces, human habitats that discouraged human community. So, where do we go from here? How do we undo what we've done over the past 40 years of automobile-dominated design? Well, there are three distinct approaches. The first involves the design of new construction. Over the next 20 years, the population of this country will increase by 50 million people. A lot of this growth will take place in new developments that are on the edge of the city. So these areas need to be designed in ways that avoid our current problems. Sometimes in order to move forward, you have to take a step backwards, and that view is shared by many urban designers today. They're part of a movement called Neotraditional Planning or Transit-Oriented Design that wants to replace urban sprawl with a new generation of traditional American towns. This approach combines the community life of pedestrian center design and the transit orientation of the streetcar neighborhood with a recognition of the important role that cars will continue to play in our lives. There are hundreds of developments proposed around the country that have been inspired by this approach, and several are under construction right now. The first Neotraditional Development opened to buyers and the project credited with starting the movement is the Gulf Coast community of Seaside, Florida. Seaside looks like a brand new turn of the century small town. It contains private homes, condominiums, commercial space with offices, stores and shops, a civic center, all within a maximum 10-minute walk of each other. Streets in Seaside invite use by pedestrians and bike riders, paved in uneven bricks which creates a racket inside fast-moving cars, and just wide enough for two cars to pass, the streets themselves slow down drivers. Seaside streets are straight and laid out in a modified grid pattern, so it's easy to find your way around, and they always end at a unique monument or other civic structure reinforcing your sense of place and direction. A transitorial development called Laguna West is currently under construction 12 miles south of Sacramento, California. The ambitious project is slated for completion near the turn of the century. When built, Laguna West will include more than 3,000 homes, condos and apartment buildings grouped in five neighborhoods. Opposites and stores and a daycare center will cluster around the Laguna West Civic Center, putting residents daily necessities within easy walking distance. But the single greatest convenience for Laguna West residents will be the Central Transit Hub by clustering so many services within a few steps of the bus depot and maybe eventually light rail transit and putting it within a short distance of your front door. Fewer people will need to use their cars for trips outside the development. A second approach to making the environment less auto dependent is the careful redevelopment of existing urban areas. We're very proud of our bus and light rail system here in Portland and we try to take every opportunity to encourage its use by residents and workers in new developments. Like many older cities, Portland has pockets of deteriorating urban landscape right for redevelopment. By actively supporting the design and construction of pedestrian and transit-oriented communities, we in government can help to reclaim our cities for the people who live in them. Portland's success in achieving its vision didn't just happen. It was the result of a conscious and often frustrating effort to match its transportation policies with its goals for development. For example, a highway at the edge of downtown was dismantled and plans for a major new freeway were abandoned. Some of the money reserved for that freeway was used to build this, Portland's first light rail transit line. This line not only supported the development of Center City, but it served as a magnet for public and private investment elsewhere as well. In the Lloyd Center area, for example, some $700 million in redevelopment has taken place, including the construction of a convention center and new office buildings, as well as the expansion of an old shopping center. But there have been equally important, though less dramatic, results in the suburbs. Portland instituted land use and zoning regulations around many of its light rail stations. They encouraged the redevelopment of these areas for higher density housing, office and shopping facilities. In this way, development has occurred which is more efficient in its use of land. Perhaps most importantly, an urban form has been created that makes it easy for people to use public transportation. We've gotten rid of one of our cars. We save on car insurance. In fact, each month we save about half of our mortgage. My family saved the need for a second car plus I get to read the newspaper on the way downtown. It's a lot less stressful and a lot cheaper and just more relaxing to get to and from work. A less ambitious but equally effective infill redevelopment project was built on this 12-acre San Diego site. This neighborhood in San Diego's Hillcrest area had been in decline for 20 years. A new San Diego master plan identified it for redevelopment and a pocket neighborhood was born. Everything in Uptown District is geared to the casual stroller. The neighborhood offers residents and visitors a remarkable array of shops and services all clustered with an easy walking distance of each other. Bus service is conveniently located on adjacent streets. I love shopping here. It's safer. It's more relaxed. It's great living here. The other day I counted 25 restaurants that are just within a 5-minute walking distance of where I live right over there. Bus is really easy to use. It's only a short walk to the bus stop and I never give it a second thought. The final opportunity to tame traffic is to make existing suburbs less auto-dependent. This generally means trying to retrofit these communities with good facilities for walking. The companies I work with have developed some of the most successful auto-dependent suburbs in Southern California. So I've been skeptical about the feasibility, even the need to change something that seemed to satisfy so many people. But I have to drive the freeways too. I've seen the multiplier effect these new suburbs have on traffic congestion. Most suburban developments give residents little choice about transportation. They either drive their cars or they stay home. But I wondered if we could do something to fix that. If we could go back into existing suburbs and create opportunities for people to walk and to take public transportation. Well the good news is I think we can and we've already started. The greatest barrier to effective transit service in most suburbs is the lack of pedestrian connections. There are some modest yet effective approaches to improving pedestrian linkages. For example, bus service already reaches parts of many suburban neighborhoods. Yet it can still remain tantalizingly out of reach for those living on cul-de-sacs. The solution? To build direct routes, stairways and footpaths connecting cul-de-sacs and loop streets to the nearest bus stops. Another technique is to open up connections between different land uses such as between residential and retail developments. By making realistic usable routes available for foot and some bicycle traffic, some of the suburbs' short hop transportation load can be shifted from cars to buses. And of course, feet. Another modification to existing suburban traffic patterns, one that can significantly increase bus use by suburbanites to prevent bus stops at the area's most popular destinations. Malls and shopping centers with sheltered, safe, convenient transit stations are magnets for suburban bus use. Likewise, office complexes can be unified by the addition of a transit center. This kind of facility invites suburbanites to leave their cars at home and stay off the freeways. So, there are three ways we can change the way communities travel within them. We can build new towns from the ground up which are designed to foster walking and the use of public transportation. We can redevelop older areas in transit-friendly ways. Or we can make modest improvements to the standard automobile-oriented suburb and activity center. Making all this happen isn't as easy as it might sound. But it can be done. People assume that to decrease traffic congestion we must increase the use of public transit. Well, that much is true. But they also assume that to increase the use of transit we have only to improve service. That part is false. No matter how wonderful we make bus or rail service, people who can't get to it won't use it. And we make it very difficult to get to. We can change this only by stepping forward during a project's approval process and making it happen. In spite of all this, most new development today continues to proceed in the old way. Acre upon acre of land is still being designed with only automobile access in mind. Even though we know this approach leads to problems. Respective regulations are one reason. They tend to favor the status quo. But inertia is another culprit. It's just easier to keep doing things the way we're used to. Change will require many voices at many levels. Elected officials and planning commissioners, developers and public works directors, even enlightened home buyers. The design of the neighborhood we live in is a choice that greatly affects our lives and those of our children. Now that's a choice that's up to you. Isn't it time you got on board?