In Amy's post, "Start Walking, it is Good for You," Aimee discusses the merits of walking versus driving. Among the many benefits she lists are saving money, burning calories, and helping the environment. Moreover, walking (according to her blog) is actually a mood booster in that it allows us direct interaction with nature and places of beauty, thereby creating a more aesthetically pleasurable traveling experience than one would have sitting in a car. Aimee did, however, note that she was not preaching that everyone dump their cars and began walking everywhere, but do so "whenever possible and in the right weather." What could be so hard about that?
Interestingly, Carol's comment on Aimee's post seemed to focus on the above question. Carol acknowledged that it would be greatly beneficial to people to walk everywhere, and did not decry the positive implications listed in the post; she did, however, state her opinion that walking as a mode of transportation has become "quite unpractical in the U.S." She noted that with the combination of weather and distance in Davis, it is often undesirable to walk to school, stores, or friends' houses, especially because such areas are often located outside of close proximity. Therefore, while walking may be a healthful and ecologically supportive means of transport, it simply cannot uphold the busy American lifestyle of today.
Both Aimee and Carol bring up valid points regarding walking's place in our nation. Yet why is it that we seem to understand that walking is good on multiple levels, yet refuse to accept it as a practical form of mobility?
I visited the city of Brentwood last year while working on a farmstead project near Discovery Bay. Barbara, the woman leading the project, drove us through the city to reach the agricultural tract we were discussing how to farm. She explained that one of the reasons she was excited to begin the project was because Brentwood had grown from ten thousand residents to forty thousand over the past decade, and she expected to reap the benefits of the population growth in her profits.
I remember staring out of the window amazed at the number of cars, housing developments, strip malls, and gas stations we passed. For a city which had only recently become a suburban metropolis, it was one of the most inefficiently developed areas I had ever visited. Brentwood, not having a fixed development plan in the initial stages of growth, had immense potential to incorporate a public transportation system, bicycle paths, and mixed use zoning to increase the amount of foot traffic and pedestrian friendly spaces. Instead, it took advantage of the fact that most residents were quite comfortable with using their own cars as opposed to buses, trams, or even bicycles, and neglected to create a town condusive to walking (my apologies if you are from Brentwood and you disagree with me; I'd love to hear your perspective as to the organization of the city). In this case, it is definitely unpractical to walk as the city's arrangement increases the time and personal energy spent traveling, and public transportation does not permeate all areas.
This example of urban sprawl relates to Carol's view because it shows how we seem to have accepted that cars are simply the necessary way to get around town in America. But to embrace Aimee's mindset, I feel we need to shift our focus away from the most widely accepted means of travel. Perhaps walking is not always practical in America, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be or that it won't become more practical than driving in the future.
(By the way: walking and public transportation, to me, go hand in hand. If you embrace one, the other will follow.)
Until we are able to use walking as our default mode of transport, we should simply do as Aimee suggests: walk where you can when you can, and reap the health, environmental, and financial benefits.
1 comment:
Prepare for a meandering comment, as if to do justice to the sauntering theme of your post….
It seems to me that one thing involved in walking is to bracket the whole idea of 'practicality'. Or, at least we might ask this: When we privilege this ideal (i.e., practicality), what do we forfeit? I agree with Aimee that walking is a mood-lifter. But this mood lifting is also something to be learned and appreciated over time; I don't think it comes instantly. Indeed, one of the effects of increased walking is a slower sense of time—one learns to be patient and perceptive on a walk from point A to point F. (And points B, C, D, and E are no longer passed through, but experienced.) My point here is that while it may not even be 'practical' to walk rather than drive, it may result in other unexpected benefits. I have sometimes wondered if devices like the iPod (and even cell phones, to an extent) have begun a turn back to walking—because people can entertain themselves while walking. Maybe this is a start, however backwards it sounds (as Truman points out in his recent post about the video function of the iPhone). As more people shun cars and walk with their iPod earbuds plugged in their ears, or gabbing with a friend, maybe people will gradually start to walk without these devices—or, on the other hand, maybe we'll invent more devices for walking, like a chair and a windscreen...maybe we'll just end up inventing the iCar. The subject of walking is a fascinating one to me, and I am curious to see how humans continue to relate to walking over the next few decades. Will walking become even more despised? Or will walking acquire a revitalized cultural iconicity?
Post a Comment