It seems that what the mall offers, is a High Street, but enclosed and with the parking problem solved. Downtowns don't offer that (any more).  The Big Box offers the 'one stop' solution.

For reasons of human nature, parking at the mall or the Big Box, doesn't seem to be an inconvenience.  not being able to park within 50 feet of a destination shop in a downtown region, is enough not to do it.

"We Americans worship the god of free-flowing traffic. We make blood sacrifice to that god in mind-boggling numbers. And woe be to the unbeliever who suggests a little slowdown, a bit of inconvenience, and a little less turf for the cars, might make us better off."

Many people deride Jim Kunstler for his pessimistic, doomsaying prognostications. But Jim is a bright guy; he's traveled widely -- to hundreds of U.S. communities large and small -- advocating walkable, mixed use neighborhoods and transit. And he's taken note of the responses. In many places, the responses are just as you report here. There's a head-in-the-sand impulse to ignore the negative impacts of auto dependent living environments. When the issue is framed as losing something (in this case, door-to-door parking), people dig in and growl out any number of justifications for maintaining the status quo, no matter how absurd or evidently self-destructive.

Better to frame the issue as gaining something: A better quality of life and a more sustainable town that will be better positioned to weather the challenges of the future. If the town adopts a "park once" strategy and redevelops as a pedestrian friendly district, it can be a win-win for the majority of residents. Sure people have to walk a little farther, but they are passing other stores on the way, and increased foot traffic means increased sales. On top of that, attractive pedestrian oriented neighborhoods become destinations in themselves, offering civic spaces, street-level vitality and municipal pride that retail strips, strip malls and power centers can't compete with.

There are many examples of towns, both old and new, that have successfully adopted strategies like these. The best method for convincing skeptical citizens is to visit the good examples in person and speak to the officials, activists, designers and developers who have implemented redevelopment plans and regulations, and who have seen demonstrated positive results.

But really this is expectations problem.  We (with limited exceptions) expect that we can continue to keep doing as we always have with perhaps cosmetic adjustments.

Like substituting ethanol for gasoline.

We EXPECT that just because we drove in the past and can drive today that we will continue to drive in the future.  Any other planning assumptions cannot reconciled with.  Even some of those that get that petro-fuel based transportation system is not sustainable cannot connect the dots so to speak into land use decision making.

I have come to the conclusion that we wont change until we literally run out of gas. Then the masses might just wake up.  

Hopefully anyway.

At the very least we wont worry about parking regulations when half the stores are closed and 90% can't afford or get gasoline.

By making the vehicles a little more sophisticated, the track can be much much cheaper... It doesn't have to be a monorail or peoplemover type thing.

People causing more traffic jams, burning more fuel at idle, as they circle around and around for others to leave.

This is the reality in many 'walkable' neighborhoods in significant cities, (I'm thinking about Santa Monica and San Diego).

With pay parking (not city parking but private) a 10 minute errand adds 5 dollars, far higher than the value of shopping there versus somewhere else.

And the higher the property price in mixed use neighborhoods the more likely people will double up on rooms (roomates/housemates) and have more cars than in the plan.  They take whatever street spaces are available.  

Squeezing parking does nothing to encourage alternate transporation if that alternate transportation is unfeasible for other reasons.

Re: Freedom of movement - i.e. driving a motor vehicle whenever, wherever, and as much as we want - is one of our most precious and fundamental rights

and

people just don't want to walk anymore

I think the mobility provided by motorized transportation satisfies a deep-seated need in human beings. It is nature at work, not culture. Pre-automobile cultures, once the motor vehicle is introduced, eagerly and quickly adapt to the new mode of living whenever possible. We witness this happening in many parts of China today. Consider this passage from Thesis #6: Humans are still Pleistocene animals.

The superpredators of Africa had created a harsh Darwinian niche for scavengers, leading to powerful packs of hyenas and flocks of vultures that could easily overpower australopithecines. Instead, australopithecines adopted a strategy of finding the kill site first, getting to it first, grabbing their meat, and retreating before other, more powerful scavengers showed up. Walking upright allowed them to see farther across the grasslands, but a kill site could be anywhere. The more ground a scavenger covers in a day, the more likely that scavenger is to stumble upon a kill site. Scavengers don't necessarily need to be fast--the dead rarely outrun them--they just need to keep moving as long as possible and cover as large a range as possible. The larger their daily range, the higher their chances of finding a kill site. That's precisely what walking allows for, and australopithecine anatomy was built for nothing quite so perfectly as walking.

We retain those traits even today, which is precisely what makes walking such an important activity. Thomas Jefferson remarked, "Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far." For more than 99% of our history, humans have been foragers--which meant, more than anything else, walking. While foragers work markedly less than we do, that work consisted almost exclusively of walking: up to four hours every day. The effects of the automobile in the 1950s not only gave us dating, it also destroyed our communities. Resources were no longer grouped together, as walking from place to place became impossible and automobiles became a requirement for existence. Face-to-face interaction died off, and so did the habit of walking--resulting in our current obesity crisis. This doesn't mean that cars and dating are bad--what it means is that we now live in a context to which we are not adapted.

"The more ground a scavenger covers in a day, the more likely that scavenger is to stumble upon a kill site. Scavengers don't necessarily need to be fast ... they just need to keep moving as long as possible and cover as large a range as possible" -- it was true for the Australopithecies, it was true for our ancestors in the genus Homo, it is true today. Similar remarks apply to hunting as opposed to scavenging. Mobility allowed hominids to survive for millions of years.

People will get out of their cars because necessity will force the issue on the downwards part of the oil production curve. But they will have to dragged from those cars kicking and screaming.

With a more speculative mind, put a roof over Main Street and call it a mall. People might be willing to walk from the parking lot if it is a mall. Put in a trolley once population has reached 50,000.

On the other hand, I am reminded of the courage and resolve of the major of the southern Brazilian city Curitiba who forbid cars from the town center.  On the day this was to begin, he had school children come out onto the streets and draw pictures with chalk.  This diffused the tension among the business owners who were going to stage giant protests by driving their cars into the forbidden zone.  Now the business people are big supporters.

The value of the stores, and the buildings, they're in, surpasses that of others by huge margins.These North Americans have got it all wrong. European business, on the whole, loves to see parking and cars banned.

That said, don't waste your time trying to change it here. It is a useless effort. By the time you get anywhere, there will no longer be the cars, or the streets, to bother you. The problem will solve itself, and it doesn't need your help.

Cars are the absence of freedom, not the symbol of it.

The freedom to drive trumps the freedom to move on foot, the freedom for children to play, and the freedom to breathe healthy air where you live. Your right to drive is worth more than my right to breathe.

There is only one sort of freedom left, and that means it is not freedom.

But until billions are spent in daily media to promote that truth, what is now will persist. Until it becomes economically profitable to change it.

Any politician who proposes anything remotely serious to change this, will not be (re-)elected.

PS: An example: property taxes are (at least mostly) paid on buildings. Shift that to taxes on land, and you liberate the owner. He can, and will, build more homes on the same piece of land. That's how you ger higher density.

Tax Petrol.

Thanks for your contributions. I live in Madison and read your articles in the Fitchburg Times, along with the ad you posted in the State Journal last week. I appreciate your efforts to call our community onto the carpet. I tried this with close friends and family and received either blank stares or vehement denial. I'm discouraged and have pretty much avoided the topic of culture change with all but my closest contacts.

We just moved to a near-west Madison neighborhood that is one of the most walkable in the community. I like it a lot because those in the neighborhood are conscious of the fact that it is walkable and want to keep it that way, or make it even more walkable by encouraging a diversity of businesses to serve the neighborhood. But living in a neighborhood like this is a luxury for us and we're stretching the bank account to do it.

I hope I live to see the day that a streetcar rolls by my front door. You must have some hope that things can change based on your actions. I admit that I'm more skeptical that people will change voluntarily. The car-culture disease can only be cured by starving it of gasoline.

Tom Anderson-Brown

If we had no car we would perhaps fight harder for the neighhborhood school (we tried that route in the past.)   But 20 minutes of driving each day makes possible access  to what we consider to be a much better education for 2 young children.

Cheap oil disolves locality and place.  I know many people who drive much further than we do for a million reasons like ours.

Expensive movement forces people to fight for the place they are....   cheap movement enables us  to neglect it... in fact, relative to our children's well being and our limited resources... it all but obligates us to ignore the local  and seek fundamental goods at a greater distance... distances that require energy use.

It's hard to see how anything but price will alter this equation.   That's why people like me are hoping for higher energy prices, preferably imposed by nature (absolute supply) rather than taxation (subject to cheating and repeal).    

I don't believe that it is possible to value place (and therefore to create place based community) as long as the universal solvent (oil) disolves the  limitations of locality and distance in which places and community's flourish.

But y'all know this.  

It is touching to see people trying to build local community in a cheap energy world... but it seems to futile.  Only the "deus ex machina" (or, shall we say "gaia ex machina"?) of absolute supply limits seems up to the task.

In theory  a wise planetary leadership could increase  taxes and prices to a level where place could be revalued... but that seems beyond hope or human nature.

Other than "for nostalgia's sake", why is a vibrant "downtown" desired? A vibrant commercial district situated appropriately for the village would seem a better goal. Space limitations in Oregon prevent our downtown from ever attaining the critical mass to become a place people frequent. Moreover, the mix of businesses currently residing downtown doesn't encourage walking and window-shopping. Few people are going to stop for an oil filter, then decide they want to browse the insurance office, physical therapy office, computer repair shop, pool installation store, etc. People stop downtown to visit one business, then they leave.

The people of Oregon have chosen the North side as their primary shopping district. Almost everyone visits our only grocery store regularly (Bill's). Let's make that area more appealing so people walk to a few shops before or after buying their groceries. Focus here also makes economic and ecological sense. People are going to drive, not walk or bike, to get their groceries, so let's make it an efficient trip.

Similarly, the push for a downtown square seems driven by nostalgia. People are not going to congregate downtown just because there's a small patch of green space. Regardless of any redesign, the downtown square will be too small for children to play or  for large gatherings of people. Oregon's large parks border the downtown area and already provide ample space for events. The existing parks appeal to families as they have playground equipment, bikes trails, and other amenities. Oregon's closest neighbor of similar size, Stoughton, has a vibrant downtown, but no downtown square. The success of their downtown stems from a critical mass of interesting stores, an appealing streetscape, and yes, ample parking.

Finally, the premise that people will proactively change for the common good is (sadly) unsupportable (as Hans is learning). Much of the populace are sheep (or lemmings), moving with the majority, too uninformed, self-absorbed, overwhelmed by life, or unconfident to change direction absent a crisis. A small minority of the populace, who either don't care about the future or lack the insight to understand the consequences of our actions, actively oppose change for the common good unless they would personally benefit. The remaining small minority of the populace are smart, independent, and caring enough to do the "right" thing, but are largely unsuccessful in convincing the majority to change.

To change the direction of the majority, the proper levers must be found. Appealing to the common good or even common sense will be unsuccessful. For instance, successful anti-smoking campaigns focus more on eliminating yellow teeth or bad breath or lined faces than preventing lung cancer. The lesson here is that sometimes the ends justify the means. To make the changes you want, you will need to find the right selfish reason for people to change to benefit the common good.

Second, one of the more insightful things that I have heard about transportation planning is that no matter how we travel, we are all pedestrians at either end of the trip.  One of your challenges is getting folks to see this.

The other thing that you seem to be fighting is that their are folks who love comprehensive plans and grand visions but there are unfortunately also folks who only see what could go wrong or who see what they might lose if things change, never what they might gain.

Don't give up on your vision for a more walkable and vibrant downtown.  Take the project on in small chunks.  Work with the businesses and property owners so that they can see what they have to gain (they all want more customers).  Organize the farmers market and/or other events.  Maximize your benefit by holding the event when few people are normally downtown.  Start small and go to the businesses and property owners with your results showing how much money was made, how many people came, etc.

The suggestion above about the roof was a good idea.  Look for ways to make the village's built environment more ameniable.

Also, start with the things that you have the most control over, like that parking lot next to the village hall.  Make it a public lot during the week, and a site for public events during the weekends.  The business owners should love that.  The only people who you will upset will be the village employees, and they work for you.

Good luck.

Advantage/revenge may happen in 20-30 years, when all the Americans who have insisted on making one-block drives now have to walk and get coronaries from their Type II diabetes.