Creating Tomorrow - Design with the Desert: Conservation and Sustainable Development - page 475

and ordinances. Words like interdependent, holistic, integrated, indigenous, even spiritual,
will be used as easily and as frequently as we now use words like coverage, setbacks, and
de n s it y.
We will know that the future is in good hands when we put our trust in the language of
human values, with only occasional references to the transactional measures of codes and
contracts. In far too many instances, it is still the other way around, but that is all about to
change.
Whether it is the villages of Europe or the American towns of the nineteenth century
or the newly master-planned communities of the Southwest, the places we find most
appealing have one thing in common. They could not be as they are without some degree
of authority for establishing agreed-upon rules. 10 This inevitably involves carefully placed
limitations on personal freedom. No significant planning or community of merit can occur
without cooperation, and cooperation is only possible when there is an allegiance to a
framework of limits. Without the agreed-upon limitations of a musical score, the finest
symphony orchestras would be incapable of producing anything but aggravating noise.
The analogy is most appropriate. Like the musicians, we are all individuals who are free
to be our best, but our highest achievements will always depend on our ability to nurture
artful, interdependent relationships with others.
27.1.5 Effective Transportation
With the possible exception of density, no issue has inspired more outrage with less clarity
than that of how we transport ourselves from one place to another. To add to the confusion,
we tend to treat dissimilar problems as though they are the same. Congestion, gridlock,
air pollution, mobility for the nondriver, the loss of human scale, and energy conservation
may be related, but they are not the same (see Chapter 14).
Consider the following as a starting point for a more shared understanding. It is a
mistake to try to get rid of congestion. All the great cities of the world experience varying
degrees of congestion. It does not even require automobiles. The tightly packed pedestrian
lines at Disneyland are a testimony to the pervasiveness of congestion. It occurs any time
a great many people all want to go to the same place at the same time. Where human
interaction is desirable, as in a vibrant retail scene, a parade or a sporting event, congestion
is not only part of the experience, without it, the result would be considered a failure.
It would be an even greater mistake to plan on a future in which we give up our auto-
mobiles. Tomorrow's cars will become more varied in size and performance, more fuel
efficient, and possibly capable of connecting to community-wide guidance devices that
increase the capacity of our street systems while decreasing accidents. What will remain
constant is our need and desire for personal mobility.
My views differ from those who see the automobile as destructive to the urban fabric
and public transit as its savior. By now, we should all know that this matter deserves more
open dialogue than simply choosing up sides.
Here is why I do not foresee us all giving up our cars for public transit. Reduced to its
fundamentals, successful public transit must satisfy only two requirements: (1) It must go
everywhere; (2) All the time. A common-sense third requirement is obviously cost. Those
using public transit are more likely to be price-sensitive than those who can afford to drive
everywhere. These requirements explain why personal transit in the form of cars is over-
whelmingly popular throughout the United States. They also explain why public transit
remains a marginal transportation mode in most parts of the country. Not only do cars go
wherever roads are provided, whenever the driver wishes, but automobile transportation