Global Issues TED Books

Cities without highways: A Q&A with TED Books essayist Diana Lind

Posted by: Rachel Lehmann-Haupt

DianaLind-Q&AIn the 1950s, 3 out of every 10 people on the planet lived in a city. Today, that ratio has nearly doubled — and the United Nations projects that by 2050, nearly 7 in 10 people will live in urban settings. Our population is gravitating towards cities, and this shift is creating amazing opportunities as well as critical problems that need our immediate attention. Modern cities are hubs of connection and creativity and, at the same time, centers of pollution and dehumanization.

City 2.0: The Habitat of the Future and How to Get There is a new TED Books anthology that seeks to answer some of the key questions about how to develop thriving cities — tackling everything from issues of sustainability to infrastructure to the happiness of urban dwellers. Born out of The City 2.0, a broad initiative for citizen-powered change that began with the 2012 TED Prize, this collection of essays offers potential answers to the question: How can we ensure that our cities are sustainable, efficient, beautiful and invigorating? Produced in partnership with The Atlantic Cities, the 12 authors featured in this book offer fascinating ideas, from transportation to food to public art.

Over the next three days, we’ll hear from three City 2.0 essay authors. Today, we sat down with Diana Lind, the editor-in-chief and executive director of Next City, to discuss her essay that envisions cities without highways.

Why do highways have a bad effect on cities?

While highways connect cities that are hundreds of miles apart and allow us to move people and goods across this vast country, many highways were built at the height of suburban development. They are not designed to bring people into cities so much as to allow people to drive past them. As a result, these highways often bisect neighborhoods, cut cities off from their waterfronts and obstruct the natural development that occurs along boulevards and streets. The land beside or under urban highways is often underdeveloped, creating no-go zones that are bad for the city’s economy, safety and appearance. Highways carry loud, polluting cars, and research has shown links between road pollution and asthma. The impervious highway surface creates stormwater runoff and heat-island effects, which are bad for a city’s resilience in climate change. And unlike other kinds of property, highways don’t generate tax revenue, preventing dozens of acres from being productively used. Simply put: highways are a blight on livable cities.

I don’t think we should keep investing in highways. In this era of climate change, downtown revitalization and population density, they can no longer be the solution. As cities see their highways become structurally obsolete, it’s a perfect time to start thinking about how to connect cities through other modes of infrastructure.

What are some of the alternatives to highways?

Any plan to replace a highway needs to account for the cars that will be displaced. Ideally, you replace a highway with more transit options so people can take a bus or train instead of a car. In New York, when the city decided not to replace the West Side Highway, it cleverly took federal highway funds and used them towards improving transit. In San Francisco, a former highway was replaced with a trolley line. The footprint of the highway itself might become a boulevard, property for new development, a park or a bike lane. On a larger scale, our national network of highways should be replaced with a better rail network that allows people the option of taking a train between cities rather than having to choose between driving or flying.

You say in your essay that more walkable neighborhoods contribute to lower foreclosure rates. Why would that be?

It’s plain math. Imagine a couple that has to pay for two cars in addition to a mortgage; they’re less likely to be able to handle their monthly bills. Each car costs the average driver nearly $9,000 a year. Compare that with a monthly MetroCard pass in New York City — it’s less than $1,250 a year, and that’s as expensive as public transit gets. If you can bike or walk to take care of your daily needs, life gets even cheaper. The money saved on not owning a car actually helps keep people in their homes.

You also say that there’s a connection between highways and obesity. Share more on that!

It’s really a connection between obesity and driving. Researchers have found that driving and obesity have a shocking 99 percent correlation. The more you drive, the more likely you are to be obese, because you have less time to walk for daily errands and otherwise be active.

What have been some of the benefits of replacing highways in New York and San Francisco?

There have been many. Removing the highways has increased area property values, significantly reduced car traffic along these thoroughfares and reconnected both cities to their waterfronts. Local gems such as San Francisco’s Ferry Building and the Hudson River Park in New York are just two examples of how improving the area instead of improving highways has resulted in deeper investments in the city’s assets.

City 2.0 is available for Kindle and Nook, as well as through the iBookstore. Or download the TED Books app for your iPad or iPhone.

The City 2.0 is an online forum that showcase stories and projects for urban innovation, and also doled out 10 grants for thinkers with great ideas for cities throughout 2012. Here, meet 8 of the winners and hear their fascinating ideas »

Comments (6)

  • fleeter Samuelli commented on Mar 7 2013

    i am a proponent of this idea. I think it would be better to move away from car oriented urban areas such as those we see in california and mimic those that we see on the east coast, such as new york.

  • commented on Mar 6 2013

    Reblogged this on kotji's Blog and commented:
    New Post

    Topics Moblog
    Before the lights
    Waiting for the Bay Lights to come on, in San Francisco weather.
    4 ความเห็น และ 34 likes

    คุณ reblogged this and commented:
    Menu New Post บล็อกที่ฉันติดตาม Topics Moblie Before the lights Waiting for the Bay Lights to come on, in San Francisco weather.

    1 ชั่วโมง, 30 minutes มาแล้ว บน Matt on Not-WordPressLiked Reblogged

    Topics Moblog
    Before the lights
    Waiting for the Bay Lights to come on, in San Francisco weather.
    3 ความเห็น และ 33 likes
    You reblogged this.

    1 ชั่วโมง, 24 minutes มาแล้ว บน Matt on Not-WordPressLiked Reblogged

    Can limitations make you more creative? A Q&A with artist Phil Hansen
    Phil Hansen has tattooed bananas, drawn a portrait on stacked Starbucks cups and created a Jimi Hendrix portrait out of matches, which he then burned. In other words, he isn’t the kind of artist who feels bound to paint on canvas. 713 more words และ 1 ความเห็น

    13 hours, 36 minutes มาแล้ว บน TED Blog
    Topics Cities Cities Of The Future City 2.0 Diana Lind Global Issues Highways Q&A TED Books TED Prize
    Cities without highways: A Q&A with TED Books essayist Diana Lind

  • Pingback: Wizmo Blog » Blog Archive » Cities without highways: A Q&A with TED Books essayist Diana Lind

  • Vance Jochim commented on Mar 5 2013

    The problem with this utopian plan is that elitist planners plan such programs when most of the public wants FREEDOM to move the way they want, get a freestanding, low density home with highways to go where they want, not just where the trains go. This is right out of the UN Agenda 21′s socialist plan to move people to cities, remove property rights and control people in high density compounds. I am tired of elitist planners saying how we should live. That is the difference between Communist China or Russia and the US.

    • Sheridan McGowan commented on Mar 5 2013

      What do you know about freedom? what do you think the rest of the US knows about freedom? I guarantee the top 3 things people know about it is “A, I deserve it, B, it’s important, C it is a basic right.” but are any of these things actually true? You make it sound as though these “elitist” people want to limit your every move, when in reality, they simply want to move towards a more harmonious and intelligent way of living.

      I personally love the idea of freedom of the individual, but in reality, we see it creates a ton of problems when it is not tempered with social responsibility. To assume freedom is a right is to assume people are rational and things will just work out in the end regardless of who we trample in our pursuit of freedom and happiness. Personally I don’t buy it, and I think restraint is needed, and it won’t always come from within a person, sometimes it will be exerted by others, or sometimes it will just be exerted by nature.

      I also don’t think “High density compounds” as you call it will function without the consent of the majority of people nor do I think living in the city will ever be a requirement. If we ever get some crazy radical who actually wants to force people into something, you better believe I’ll be opposing it as well, but for now, try to look at it not from a viewpoint of fear. I sense that you see this as a loss of control and liberty, when instead it is simply a new idea aimed at managing our 7 billion + human population so that our future generations don’t have to deal with a completely destroyed world. We are at a point in our civilization where the individual’s perceived rights can be very counter intuitive and in fact down right destructive when looked at from a larger perspective. (and trust me, we need to all look at things at a larger perspective. Even though it can be down right depressing at times to see things how they truly are, it is necessary to be honest with how things work on a macro scale, rather than at an micro scale. The self has many desires, but the self must recognize the whole picture and truly empathize with the reality and gravity of the situation when the self is placed in front of the whole.)

  • Pingback: Wizmo Blog » Blog Archive » Cities without highways: A Q&A with TED Book essayist Diana Lind