The dichotomy between these two has sometimes become so extreme that when one option is chosen, the other option is not only ignored, but actively discouraged. Planners who choose the automotive option will deliberately omit sidewalks; planners who choose the walkable option will deliberately work to reduce the number of parking spaces and make the driving experience frustrating in other ways.
This binary framework reduces urban planning to “either/or” decisions, simplistic thinking, and in some cases political conflicts.
There is a third way. Most cities in the United States — small, medium, or large — can embrace both of these options simultaneously. A city can be walkable and automotive at the same time. It can have a robust public transportation system and lots of parking at the same time.
There are exceptions: cities whose geographical peculiarities make them less flexible, like San Francisco and parts of New York.
But other cities can take advantage of America’s resources: lots of open land and the ability to generate concrete, steel, and asphalt in large amounts.
An office worker in a city might choose to be the only passenger in her or his SUV driving to work two days a week, bicycle to work another two days per week, and take the streetcar to work on the final day of the work week. City planners can make all of these convenient and equally convenient.
The economics of this arrangement can become self-sustaining: more people will be lured into the city from the suburbs, either for an afternoon shopping trip, or to live in the city permanently. Increased revenue will pay for the infrastructure.
